The American Spectator : The Decline of Liberalism

Text Size

The Decline of Liberalism

By Conrad Black from the February 2011 issue

A history of past greatness at home and abroad, and, since 1960, of growing weakness, hubris, and failure.

AMERICAN LIBERALISM, synonymous today with big government, the exact opposite of the liberalism of Edmund Burke and other British champions of individual liberty, arose essentially from the use of the state to alleviate the most severe economic inequalities in society. In Great Britain this began in the competition between the Liberal and Conservative leaders, William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli, between 1865 and 1880, and among major European powers with the quest for an unthreatening working class with the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck. Britain had a great battle over pensions under the chancellor of the exchequer just before the First World War, David Lloyd George.

The assassination in 1914 of the distinguished French socialist leader Jean Jaures, for advising against a headlong plunge into general war, was a grim harbinger of what was to come: ineffectual socialist pacifism that facilitated the advance of totalitarian regimes of hitherto undreamed of evil. Between the wars, in the aftermath of the hecatomb of World War I and through the Great Depression, there was a general drift to higher taxes, a more extensive social safety net, and the rise in Britain and France of democratic socialist parties to principal opposition status and a few turns at government (Ramsay MacDonald and Leon Blum).

In Germany, where the picture was much complicated by the bitterness of defeat in war and rampant inflation in its aftermath, the democratic socialists were outflanked and outmatched by the Communists, the National Socialists, and the principal upholders of Germany's fragile democratic heritage, the mainly Catholic Christian democratic parties that were revolted by the authoritarian paganism of the Nazis and the totalitarian and atheist materialism of the Communists. The triumph of the Nazis and the dithering and waffling of France and Britain between conservative appeasers and pacifistic socialists, when crowned by the most cynical alliance in world history between Hitler and Stalin, infamously catapulted Europe into the Second World War.

From 1865, while the more advanced European countries were slowly conceding a larger share of public policy concern and fiscal largesse to improving working conditions, tighter restrictions on commercial fraud and exploitation of consumers, wider franchises and education, and some concessions to organized labor, and financing these reforms with increased taxation on higher incomes, the United States was in the full flower of economic growth, fueled by a colossal 60-year wave of immigration: economic growth rates generally exceeded 10 percent annually for most of that time. In such a climate, nearly 28 million immigrants arrived in America between the Civil and First World Wars, helping almost to triple the country's population from 33 million to 98 million.

In this heady atmosphere, while there was labor unrest, individualism and pure capitalism reigned, and American exceptionalism had little time for what was generally considered proletarian, foreign-originated sniveling on behalf of the self-pitying indolent. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson made a few gestures to restrain monopoly, assure a stable money supply, and discourage fraud in vital industries such as food processing and packaging. Several of these attitudes showed twitches of meliorism in respect of the working class, but it didn't go much further. Immigration was rolled back in the 1920s. Federal taxation of incomes was only made constitutional in 1913.

WHAT IS CALLED LIBERALISM in America today had scarcely seen the light of day in the United States until Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated president on March 4, 1933, to face an unemployment rate generally reckoned at somewhere between 25 and 33 percent, with the banking and stock and commodity exchange systems collapsed and shut down, no direct federal relief for the unemployed, farm prices beneath subsistence levels for 75 percent of farmers, nearly half of residential accommodation in the country threatened by mortgage foreclosure, and no guarantee of any savings deposits. FDR led the country out of the Depression, saved 95 percent of the existing institutions and social framework with emergency relief and by bolting a safety net onto them, and channeled economic envy and anger against nonexistent groups (economic royalists, war profiteers, monopolists, munitions makers, malefactors of great wealth, etc.), and ultimately against the nation's real enemies: the Nazis and Japanese imperialists. If he had once named any plutocratic wrongdoers, mobs would have burned down their houses, but he preserved the moral integrality of the country.

His New Deal unfolded in five phases. The first New Deal (1933-1934) consisted of gigantic workfare projects to absorb the unemployed in conservation programs and what would today be called infrastructure construction; a comprehensive banking reorganization with guarantees of deposits; agreed rollbacks of agricultural production, voted by sector, to assure viable pricing; encouragement of cartels and collective bargaining to raise wages and prices; evaluation of the dollar and a departure from the gold standard apart from international transactions; and legislated improvements in working conditions.

The second New Deal, 1934-1938, included Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, some remodeling of the pyramidal corporate structure of the hydroelectric industry, and higher taxes as a sop to the demagogic political movements chipping at the two-party system. In the latter half of this phase, the workfare and conservation programs were rolled back, and the federal deficit was reduced. Depressive conditions began to reappear and Roosevelt reapplied workfare pump-priming on a massive scale in 1938-1939 (third New Deal), and shifted to the greatest peacetime arms buildup in history, including America's first peacetime conscription, the fourth New Deal phase, which carried into the war, 1939-1945. Counting the workfare program participants as employed (which is as logical as including European military draftees and defense workers as employed), unemployment was severely reduced by 1935; counting them as unemployed, the unemployment numbers came down to the low teens by 1936, descended below 10 percent in 1940, and unemployment was completely eliminated before the Japanese attack plunged America into war in December 1941.

The final phase of the New Deal came posthumously to Roosevelt, 1945-1949, but was his GI Bill of Rights, which gave university tuition and a stake to start a business or buy a farm to 13 million returning American servicemen (almost 10 percent of the entire population), and effectively turned the working class into a middle class, having saved them from joblessness, trained and led them to victory in war, and staked them to new careers. The Roosevelt program kept extremists from making any headway in American elections. The Socialist Party vote declined by 85 percent from 1932 to 1936, and when asked if Roosevelt wasn't carrying out the Socialist program, perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas replied: "Yes, carrying it out in a coffin."

THERE HAS BEEN A good deal of revisionist comment recently that Roosevelt's policies did not end the Depression, but as U.S. GDP doubled in his 12 years in office and unemployment declined from roughly 30 percent to 0.5 percent, that case is difficult to sustain (and is in fact, nonsense). From this point on, the tussle between American liberals and conservatives has been over what emphasis to give unrestricted economic activity, which promises relatively high growth, but with sharp cyclicality of booms and busts; and alleviation of substandard social conditions through anti-poverty and health care programs. Most of Western Europe, as it rebuilt from the devastation of war, fearful for notorious historic reasons of the anger of the urban working class and of small farmers, has been lumbered by a system of social benefit and subsidized living that paid Danegeld to traditional disturbers of social peace at the price of minimal economic growth, though they are relatively high-income societies.

In the United States, conservative and liberal issues became tangled in foreign policy as well, as liberals tended to believe that stability in the world could be had with minimal recourse to force and with reliance on international organizations, while retaining a military adequate to deter direct national attack on the United States and defend its principal allies, and conservatives have been generally more proactive in seeking an improved strategic balance, by a combination of diplomatic innovation and assured peace through enhanced military strength.

In foreign affairs, President Truman devised the great instruments of anti-Communist containment -- NATO, the Marshall Plan, etc. -- and defied Stalin with the Berlin Airlift and resisted the Communist takeover of South Korea. President Eisenhower, the first Republican in 20 years, maintained virtually everything FDR and Truman had done, but did not expand the state socially (though he did build the interstate highway system and the St. Lawrence Seaway), and in foreign affairs, he ended the Korean War along the compromise lines sought by Truman, contrary to the wishes of more conservative Republican hawks, including Douglas MacArthur, Richard Nixon, and John Foster Dulles. Eisenhower refused to touch Vietnam as the French were pushed out of it, and cut the defense budget while relying on "more bang for the buck": massive retaliation to deter aggression. He threatened a nuclear response to everything, even over the trivial Formosa Strait islands of Quemoy and Matsu. It was brinkmanship, but it worked. Eisenhower also began the de-escalation of the Cold War, with the first summit meeting in 10 years, at Geneva in 1955, where he proposed his "Open Skies" program for reciprocal aerial military reconnaissance.

Roosevelt's social programs were left essentially unaltered for 20 years after he died, until President Lyndon Johnson cut taxes while expanding the social ambitions of the federal government with his Great Society War on Poverty, and massive job retraining efforts, coupled to great and long-delayed advances in civil rights. Kennedy and Johnson favored civil rights more actively than had their predecessors, and backed conservatives into pious humbug about the Constitution not allowing for federal imposition of voting rights and official social equality for African Americans. Johnson overcame that opposition and it was one of liberalism's finest hours. But the long Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower consensus frayed badly when Johnson, who had been a congressman during the New Deal years, determined to take it a long step further and proposed a policy extravaganza that promised to buy the end of poverty through social investment. As all the world knows, it was a disaster that destroyed the African American family and severely aggravated the welfare and entitlements crises.

And in foreign and security policy, Kennedy abandoned massive retaliation, promised limited war by limited means for limited objectives, in unlimited locations, and the Communists took him up on it. Having claimed a nonexistent missile gap, he then squandered the U.S. missile advantage in favor of Mutual Assured Destruction; i.e., no advantage. Worse, he drank his own bathwater over Cuba. Before that crisis (1962), there were NATO missiles in Greece and Turkey, no Russian missiles in Cuba, and no assurance against U.S. invasion of Cuba. After the crisis, there were no NATO missiles in Greece or Turkey, nor Russian missiles in Cuba, and a guarantee of no U.S. invasion of Cuba. U.S. intelligence had not realized that there were already 40,000 Soviet troops in Cuba in the autumn of 1962, and that the nuclear warheads were already there and could be attached in 24 hours. The famous and photogenic sea blockade was closing the gate after the Trojan horse had entered. It was a triumph for Kennedy, in that he didn't commit to an invasion that would have been a very rough business in a nuclear-capable theater and that would presumably have precipitated countermeasures in Berlin. (Khrushchev could not have sat inert while the U.S. overpowered two Soviet divisions in Cuba.) But it was no strategic victory, and discerning judges, especially de Gaulle and Mao Tse-tung and Richard Nixon (who lost the race for governor of California as a result of the perceived Kennedy tour de force in Cuba), saw that.

However, the liberal leadership thought they had a new and foolproof technique of crisis management, the critical path of graduated escalation, and that led us straight into Vietnam, with no notion of how to fight such a war; while LBJ's application of overreach to domestic affairs drove America into the mire of the Great Society.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom and Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, both published by PublicAffairs Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (102) | Leave a comment

Jon| 2.21.11 @ 7:40AM

"unrestricted economic activity"
All economic activity is restricted by consumers and competition.
Do you mean "unrestricted by government"?

Alan Brooks| 2.21.11 @ 7:27PM

Well sure Mr. Black means unrestricted by government. What do you think? by the Jesuits, perhaps?
A scholar is capable of reading between the lines without instruction from a higher authority, Jon.

Intelligent Design| 2.21.11 @ 7:51AM

"THERE HAS BEEN A good deal of revisionist comment recently that Roosevelt's policies did not end the Depression, but as U.S. GDP doubled in his 12 years in office and unemployment declined from roughly 30 percent to 0.5 percent, that case is difficult to sustain (and is in fact, nonsense)."

Black's statement is nonsense. GDP was pumped up by government spending and unemployment was mostly ended by WW II. Roosevelt's policies of bigger government, higher taxes, and war on capitalism actually prolonged the Depression for a decade. Obama is copying Franklin Roosevelt's dumb policies.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.21.11 @ 9:08AM

Yeah. They all love FDR. He's GOD, to Obama's Jesus. FDR soared above the clouds, while Barry can only walk on water. If FDR said something? It was the GOSPEL. "So, let it be written. So let it be done."
Yet, in the conflagration, that is Madison Wisconsin, the Marxist/Communist/Elitist PUKES, marching in the Streets, fly in the face of their almighty God.
FDR was DEAD SET AGAINST giving Collective Bargaining to Public Employees.
The CLOSED SCHOOLS are just one example of why.
Apparently, FDR was INFALLABLE. With one small exception.
BUST THEM UP!

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 10:49AM

Right on Intelligent Design. Black fails to mention that prior to WW2, unemployment was still above 15 percent, and that we also had a depression within a depression. Unemployment was reduced when millions of men were drafted and others entered the wartime industries. But as my parents can attest there was a great deal of hardship and rationing and "doing without" during the war years. Hardly what we expect from a prosperous economy. See Murphy's *Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression*, for a clear and easy to read explanation of Roosevelt's failures in domestic policy during the 1930s.

A.M. Mallett| 2.21.11 @ 12:28PM

That is dead on right.

More Intellgence| 2.21.11 @ 2:23PM

EXACTLY. The small space he gave to this issue shows that he knowingly ignores the obvious fact that WWII was the cause of a rising GDP and unemployment. HE IS FULL OF NONSENSE!

Intelligent Design| 2.21.11 @ 6:15PM

A good book to read about FDR and the Depression is "The Forgotten Man", by Amity Shlaes.

Craig Goodrich| 2.23.11 @ 12:09PM

Second the motion; a really excellent and readable book.

An important point that Mr. Black overlooks is that the fundamental economic argument is not over whether the Great Depression actually ended while FDR was in power -- obviously it did -- but whether New Deal floundering and overregulation, not to mention tax rates subject to almost daily revisions, created a climate in which it was essentially impossible for businesses to coherently make future plans -- thus prolonging what should have been a short, sharp recession into a decade of misery, as the same kind of government-by-delusion is doing under Mr. Obama.

old white guy| 2.24.11 @ 4:06PM

while i do enjoy reading history, todays world is coming under the control of the terminally stupid and the uninformed and the illiterate. where the hell do we go from here?

Marcus Marcellus| 2.21.11 @ 7:51AM

No wonder Conrad Black was incarcerated: he's mad! In what way is tbyhis fable any different from the standard deification of FDR by the NYT?

It's a pity that with so much "free" time on his hands, Black never bothered to read a few books by Austrian economists and amend his embarrassingly quotidian view of the Great Depression.

ronlsb| 2.21.11 @ 10:33AM

Nice catch, Marcus. I saw the exact thing in this twisted defense of the great Roosevelt.

old white guy| 2.24.11 @ 4:06PM

he's mad and you are stupid.

JP| 2.21.11 @ 8:01AM

A nice but brief history of 20th Century American politics. But Liberalism, at least the liberalism of Locke, Jefferson, Smith, Madison, and Washington died sometime in the late 19 Century. Some even believed it died in 1861 with the first shots at Ft Sumpter.

Classical Liberalism is based on Hobbes' dictum that life is mean, nasty brutish, and short. Humans cannot be trusted no matter how good thier intentions. The building of our original political edifice takes into account Man's fallen nature, and attempts to limit the amount of damage one man or party can do. Yes, we can elect a crook, an ego maniac, or a fool. But the amount of damage he can do is limited.

We no longer have those checks. Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt began the illiberal process. But, the theoretical ideas took root a generation earlier. And the first heresey to Classical Liberalism was the belief that Man can be perfected; that he was good; and that it was the job for the elites to make him so.

Bob K.| 2.21.11 @ 10:01AM

Spot on, JP!

Short, historically accurate and to the point!

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 10:56AM

Only neo-confederates believe "liberalism" died at Ft. Sumter. Lincoln in fact rescued liberalism from illiberal, pro-slavery secessionism. Moreover, classical liberalism is based on Locke's political philosophy, not Hobbes's defense of absolutism. I agree that the theoretical roots of modern liberalism began before TR and Wilson. You can find it in William Jennings Bryan, with his "third-way" liberalism (neither socialism nor individualism).

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 12:04PM

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 12:35PM

Secessionists claimed a constitutional right to secession. They denied they were engaging in revolution.

Vic| 2.21.11 @ 1:19PM

It is quite obvious to any non partisan student of history that the so called "Civil War" was not a civil war. The south was not attempting to take over the United States, they just wanted out. But like all tyrants before him, Lincoln could care less about the people, only his own lust for power and bloodshed.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 1:49PM

The south wanted out so it could continue its practise of illiberal slavery. They were the true tyrants and Lincoln was the true friend of liberty.

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 2:39PM

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Abraham Lincoln: Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 4:12PM

Saving the union was the necessary condition for any further progress on African emancipation. Lincoln favored the "liberal" solutions of his day -- emigration back to Africa -- and believed that eventually, if slavery could be contained just to the Southern states, it would wither away and died.

Also, he did not want to antagonize the slave states that did not leave the union. Lincoln could not do everything since he was not a dictator.

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 5:53PM

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 1:45PM

"The US law of secession is thought to have been decided by the US Supreme Court in White v. Texas, following the Civil War. The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the Court, said,

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

"Some advocates of secession justified it as a revolutionary right, but most of them based it on constitutional grounds."

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 1:53PM

“[T]he sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained….The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.” Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 2:42PM

“[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.”
Jefferson Davis

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 4:17PM

“I do maintain there was no rebellion, no resistance to lawful authority in the action of the Confederates in what occurred at Fort Sumter, but, on the contrary, I maintain that their resistance there was a resistance to open and palpable usurpations of power by the authorities in Washington….” Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy.

“It was no Insurrection or Rebellion, or even Civil War in any proper sense of these terms." Alexander Stephens.

“Ours is not a revolution." Jefferson Davis, 1864.

What is it about "our is not a revolution" that you do not understand?

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 5:45PM

It's Semantic Parsing Sport.
I pointed out what Lincoln said, a number of secessionists said & Chief Justice Chase said.

"Lincoln's inaugural address touched on several topics: first, his pledge to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government"—including Fort Sumter, which was still in Federal hands; second, his argument that the Union was indissolvable, and thus that secession was impossible; and third, a promise that while he would never be the first to attack, any use of arms against the United States would be regarded as" rebellion", and met with force."

"Revolution definition:
Rebellion, often by organized military action, but always with the support of a significant proportion of the population, aimed at the replacement of an existing government. "

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 6:33PM

It is not semantics. The difference between a constitutional right of secession and the natural right of revolution is basic.

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 6:52PM

Now, your an argument against yourself, along with Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861

"It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 9:08PM

Right, Lincoln did not recognize a LEGAL right of secession. Revolution is extra-constitutional, extra-legal. It is a natural right that all men have in the state of nature before they enter into civil society.

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 9:26PM

Wrong! Semantic Parsing Tap Dancer.
You & Lincoln are talking in Semantic Parsing Circles, Sport.

"their revolutionary right"

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 9:45PM

"The famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration Of Independence. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government."

Vern Crisler| 2.22.11 @ 12:00AM

You are not picking up on the distinction Lincoln is making between the constitutional right of amendment and the extra-constitutional right to overthrow it via revolution. There is no place for a legal right of secession in Lincoln's disjunction.

You need to stop quote-mining and read ALL that Lincoln said on the topic, or do you want to spend the rest of your life being an irrelevant Johnny-reb?

Vern Crisler| 2.22.11 @ 12:04AM

Recall that vice pres. Alexander Stephens asked his fellow confederates what rights the North had violated. Since the North had not violated any of the rights of the South, revolution would not have been legitimate.

Plus black slaves had more right to revolution than Southerners, and that's why the South didn't appeal to the right of revolution. They didn't want to give any ideas to their slaves.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.11 @ 2:49AM

Dear Vern---arguing with Clint is not wise. He is a rabid Wolverine bereft of higher cognitive functions. Your points make great argumentative sense, but Clint is a combative idiot.

Clint, do you think we have reached a state where armed revolution against the government is necessary? I don't, as I believe that the ballot box still has great power. You, however, being a deranged Paulite, might think diferently.

Craig Goodrich| 2.23.11 @ 12:35PM

An interesting and little-known fact is that the possibility of unilateral secession had always been simply assumed before the Civil War.

Careful reading of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, for example, reveals a clear but veiled threat. And in response to Jefferson's embargo on trade with Britain and France during the Napoleonic conflict, there was widespread agitation for secession by New England merchants.

Likewise the abolitionist Willian Lloyd Garrison believed that New England should secede to isolate the South and nullify the Fugitive Slave Law.

It provokes a bemusing train of thought to notice that all of these various movements -- including, largely, the War for Southern Independence -- promoted either New England getting rid of the rest of the country or the rest of the country getting rid of New England...

Clint| 2.21.11 @ 2:48PM

Lincoln didn't.
Lincoln was an argument against himself.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.11 @ 2:50AM

No, Clint, Lincoln was quite consistent in his aim and logic. That's why he's on Rushmore, whereas when you die, you will be forgotten. So will I, but I at least will have saved some lives. You will have done nothing.

old white guy| 2.24.11 @ 4:10PM

only those who are willing to shed blood to keep their freedom will remain free. words will not do it. the words follow the battle, not the other way round.

MikeD| 2.21.11 @ 8:41AM

I can't read a word about lyndon johnson's 'liberal greatness' and civil rights record without thinking back to what he said after he signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Which was actually rammed through by playing the race card and invoking the memory of JFK.)

Before I answer my rhetorical question, to forestall all the trolls who are going to foam at the mouth after seeing an opportunity to call me a racist, I must add one point: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did nothing but reinforce specifically the individual rights inherent in the Constitution, and, no, I do not approve of segregation or any of the injustices perpetrated on our darker brethren by some 'melanin challenged' authorities back then. OK? We all agree that those were bad things and nobody deserved to be a second class citizen in their own country. (If I were a practicing liberal, this could be where I tell you all that my best friend is black and I marched with MLK, but I won't pander to anybody.)

Back to the point. The whole devotion shown toward civil and equal rights by LBJ was a political sham to get elected. He'd have done more to get RE-ELECTED but he screwed up in Vietnam by killing Americans who he forced to fight a one armed war against an enemy that had no such restrictions. Anyway, after he signed the 1964 bill, and was safely away from the tv lights, he said something close to: "Well, that'll keep the ni**ers voting democrat for the next hundred years." Look it up. He was, like most libs, a raving hypocrite.

Is liberalism declining? It should be, but these people are evil and stealthy. They'll continue to do anything they can to get their way. If you think I'm wrong, start paying attention to what the dems liberal wing and their propaganda wing (the media) begin saying about any conservative candidate that declares for any race this election cycle. You'll find the politics of personal destruction alive and well; at least as practiced by the political left.

USSAlabama| 2.21.11 @ 1:16PM

Speaking of the trolls, I asked Emmett to put AS on a facebook page where trolls are easily managed with the "block" button.

skip| 2.21.11 @ 5:49PM

To what purpose?

What good is just 'talking amongst ourselves'? What hope is there if we don't convert one RCV, Alan Brooks, vtwin, jharp, and any others one at a time, no matter how truly offensive their thoughts and ideas might be? How do we carry the fight into their circles out of our reach without them?

What about 'congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech'? We expect our politicians to respect this while we don't?

And what about my intention to live my entire life without ever interacting with facebook even once?

Jack Olson| 2.21.11 @ 8:42AM

Black omits the Great Inflation and its political effect. Monetary inflation creates political tension between those who profit from it and those who pay for it in lower living standards. The Great Inflation of the 1970's and the federal government's pretense at trying to c0ntrol it while actually encouraging it, was a powerful force driving the country to the political right.

Stormzeye| 2.21.11 @ 11:34AM

Truly a seminal moment in US history. When Nixon took us off the gold standard the price of assets climbed out of control. They are only now coming back to earth. The extreme rise in the cost of housing alone from the early to the late seventies is, in my opinion, what caused the need for the "two income family" and the rise of the Female Liberation Movement. This event was a demographic event of similar significance to the post-war baby boom.

JP| 2.21.11 @ 2:37PM

I dare say it began with the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Income Tax. From 1813 to 1913 there was 0 inflation. That is, the price of corn, cotton, iron ore, or gold was the same in 1913 as it was in 1813. Yes, there were sharp, painful business cycles. But a person could actually save his money and not worry about inflation eating it away. That all changed with Wilson. Nixon only finished what the Progressive started 60 years prior.

Now our credentialed masters on Wall St believe a 2% inflation target is all well and good. That is, if you saved $100 in 2000, it could only buy $80 of goods in 2010. And people wonder why no one saves anymore. And using Gold as a standard, the dollar in 2011 has been inflated about 98% of its 1913 price level. Remember that when Bernecke says there is no inflation.

JohnR22| 2.21.11 @ 9:13AM

The "great" Liberals of the 1950s would be Centrist Republicans if they were alive today. The Dem party has shifted so far to the Left that it really has nothing to do with the Dem party of Truman or JFK. It's good that they're trying to adopt the the "progressive" label; now if we can just convince them to drop the pretense and accurately claim themselves as the Socialist party we'll all be better off.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.21.11 @ 9:18AM

This can all be rationalised, if you just know a coupla statistics.
There was a Study, recently, that concluded that 20% of the American Population, suffers from a MENTAL DISORDER.
Why is that important?
Well........According to Polling Data: 20% of Americans identify themselves as LIBERALS. And, in 2008, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro/Abu Hussain recieved votes from, roughly, 20% of the American population.
Proving, once and for all, that LIBERALISM is a MENTAL DISORDER.
But, you already knew that.
So, is Liberalism declining? NO. It just seems that way, because they've awoken the SILENT MAJORITY.
And we will be SILENT, never more.

USSAlabama| 2.21.11 @ 1:18PM

Tim, I'm glad I am not the only one who noticed!

Louis Jenkins| 2.21.11 @ 9:45AM

Wow. This article read like an anthem of 70 years of American politics. But if FDR was the beginning, Obama will be the end of America. It is approaching. FDR's policies will not work because America has changed.

Gavin Lewis| 2.21.11 @ 10:07AM

A tour de force, Mr Black.

ronlsb| 2.21.11 @ 10:30AM

As thoughtful as your article is, I am apalled that you would contend the policies of Roosevelt delivered us from a depression. You, my friend, have clearly received a "liberal" education when it comes to politics and economics. I suggest you do a little study of actual history and economical statistics that transpired during the 30's and perhaps you won't be so quick to credit Roosevelt with much of anything other than sustaining and even worsening the welfare of America during that time and beginning the destruction of liberty in our nation. It never ceases to amaze me that people such as yourself could write such foolishness about Roosevelt.

Al Hubbard| 2.21.11 @ 10:42AM

A friend of mine who profesed to be a Liberal onc lamented that "Liberals today are not true Liberals. A true Liberal lives the way he wants and lets others do the same. These people today think they have the obligation to tell others how to live." A far as I know, though, he still profeses to be a liberal....

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 11:05AM

An interesting article. From the perspective of a liberal flawed on in a good number of ways. But rather than argue over some of the content in this article, lets look at the state of conservatism. As a starting point, it seems valuable to ask; what is conservatism? In order to define it, one must look at the pillars of conservatism; social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and military adventurism. Even at first glance it is immediately obvious that fiscal conservatism is directly at odds with military adventurism. If a group of people sincerely believe that the US taxpayer should pay as little as possible for a limited number of services provided by the government, it is directly contradictory to suggest that they should be on the hook for paying for the democratization of he people of other countries. Obviously. Likewise, if one believes that government should be limited, it is blatantly obvious that it should not be involved in enforcing one groups sense of morality. So, given the fact that the three pillars of conservatism are inherently contradictory, it is obvious that conservatism in its present form is not a coherent, rational ideology. So what is it then? It seems that in recent times it is most correctly defined as purely a reactionary movement against liberalism. A kind of knee-jerk opposition to anything liberals propose, whether or not that opposition can plausibly qualify as a rational ideology. As a purely defensive "ideology," conservatives can never win; the greatest possible success enjoyed by a "conservative" consists of slowing or temporarily stopping the inexorable march of liberalism. This, incidentally, helps to explain why conservatives tend to be so angry. As an analogy, if I were a dedicated fan of a football team that had no offense, I would probably be angry as well.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 12:02PM

Where did you come up with the canard that "military adventurism" is a pillar of conservatism? Or are you one of those Lew Rockwell libertarians who hates the state so much, you don't regard the concept of national interest as legitimate?

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 12:44PM

As I mentioned, I am a liberal, not a libertarian. I do not "hate the state." My criticism of "conservative" foreign policy is that it is incredibly wasteful and does not in any way serve the national interests of the US. For example, we are currently spending around $300 million/day in Afghanistan. What are we getting for such an enormous investment? We are training an Afghani "police force" of highly questionable loyalty - loyalty to the interests of Afghanistan, let alone the US, and are successfully pushing Islamic extremists into Pakistan. Hardly a conservative effort. The US does not gain from this in economic terms (obviously) or in terms of national security (since we are just moving our enemies from point A to point B). We would be better off burning $300 million dollars a day in one-dollar bills in the streets of America; at least it would keep some people warm.

Vic| 2.21.11 @ 1:11PM

Is this wasteful war not being continued by the current oracle of liberalism, Chairman Zero? Or was this adventure only repugnant while comrade Bush was in office?

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 1:27PM

After some extensive effort, I have converted your comment into sensical English. I believe what you are asking is whether it this war was equally wasteful when waged by Obama and Bush. Yes.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 2:03PM

You may be right that our wars in Afghanistan (and Iraq) were ill-advised, but it is no principle of conservatism to engage in war for war's sake.

George Bush was not a shining example of conservatism in that he adopted Progressive ideas about spreading democracy around the Islamic world (not to mention the ridiculous "compassionate conservativism" idea).

Like most liberals, Bush adopted Stephen Douglas's popular sovereignty idea. He failed to understand Lincoln's view that democracy was nothing if it did not preserve fundamental natural rights.

Outside of national self-interest, the US should not be spreading democracy to Islamic cultures that do not respect fundamental rights, or who would use demoracy to install terrorist organizations into power.

The attack on Afghanistan could be justified by national self-defense, but it seems increasingly clear that Iraq was probably a mistake, derived from fuzzy Wilsonianism thinking rather than hard-nosed calculations of national self-interest.

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 3:18PM

Bush was considered a conservative G0d-send until his approval rating plummeted. Also, for the most part the 2012 GOP candidates are running essentially on a Bush-squared platform (especially Palin and Huckabee). I suspect that they will be considered model conservatives until their approval does the same. Other than that, the initial attack on Afghanistan may be justified by national self-defense. Almost 10 years later, that clearly no longer applies.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 4:29PM

Bush was conservative IN COMPARISON WITH his predecessor Bill Clinton. But his "compassionate conservatism" and his alliance with Teddy Kennedy angered many conservatives. His approval ratings plummeted because of his seemingly slow, hands-off response to Katrina. Conservatives were already suspicious of him because of his questionable supreme court nomination, and also his "comprehensive" immigration policies (creeping amnesty). So when the leftist media starting piling on Bush because of Katrina, the conservatives weren't there in numbers to defend him.

As the Iraq war turned into a quagmire, Bill Buckley and other conservatives bailed on Bush, and it took the "surge" policy to turn the failed nation-building adventure into something more positive.

I think your main problem is that you are confusing conservative with Republican, as if the two could always be equated. They are not the same. Hence, your understanding of conservatism is confused.

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 4:59PM

At the time Bush left office he had an approval rating in the low 30's, yet an approval rating among self described conservatives of around 75%. I may be confusing conservatism and Republicanism, but so are conservatives and Republicans. Possibly this is due to the confusion over what "conservative" means as described above.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 6:46PM

Another lie..he barely won the first election.. and most were lukewarm about him.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 2:07PM

You are equating military adventurism with the conservative belief in a strong and well funded military. The three pillars are not contradictory. As usual, you start with a false premise and expect no one to notice and run from there. I had to laugh when you claimed that conservativsim was not rational. At that point, I thought, should I waste any time responding to this liberal? The conservative movement did not coin the term "making the world safe for democracy" nor did it lead the American public into most of the Wars of the 20th century....Liberal Democrats did that. Yes, conservative thought believes in limited government. Government that stays within its role defined by the constitution and that includes its responsibility for the DEFENSE of the nation. Enforcing morality? Yeah, we object to the corrupt and perverse morality of a very small minority forcing that so-called morality on the majority through its courts over the proper legislative branches of a government that represents the true will of the self governing people of a Republic. You are the one confused. I suggest you actually read and educate yourself about what conservativism actually is rather than what your sixties left over teacher told you in your public education classes.

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 3:14PM

Hmm. A totally unsuccessful rebuttal in pretty much every sense. Also, you seem to take much more offense to my argument than you might if it weren't true. "The three pillars are not contradictory" is not a substantive, fact-based argument; it is simply a denial. Government-enforced morality is inherently "big government." Again, obviously. Whether or not "Liberal Democrats" are responsible for the original idea of nation building, the right has latched on to the idea with a vengeance. So, are they "conservative" despite adopting some of the worst aspects of liberalism? As for fiscal conservatism, the right is not even consistent on this! Their current proposal is to 1) Not raise taxes on anyone no matter what 2) Not cut Social Security or Medicare (politically motivated rather than ideologically, but still the rights platform) 3) Spend trillions of dollars foreign-nation-building 4) balance the budget. Clearly these goals are contradictory. So again, I submit that "conservatism" is intellectually incoherent, and is really just a reactionary movement against liberalism.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 4:21PM

Why can't we assert that liberalism (progressivism) is a reactionary movement against Constitutionalism?

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 4:28PM

Liberalism, agree with it or not, has a coherent message: Use taxpayer dollars to help those who need it. This is not a reactionary movement against constitutionalism because its goal is not to oppose the implementation of the constitution at every turn.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 4:33PM

Your definition is too general to mark a difference between conservatism and liberalism. Even conservatives believe in using tax dollars to help those who need it. In fact the Progressives turned their backs on Constitutionalism starting in the 1890s and going forward with Byran, Wilson, and finally Roosevelt and the liberal Supreme Court. They were therefore in every way reactionary, just as is modern liberalism.

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 5:01PM

I would argue that conservatives believe in using tax dollars to help those who do not need it (the rich and well connected), and do not believe in using it to help those who do (the poor and disenfranchised). This seems a fairly specific difference to me.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 6:22PM

That's beacuse you are an unthinking idiot that loves sterotypes and tows the party line. Conservatives are not in favor of giving money (our tax dollars) to anyone. We do not approve of bail outs nor cronie capitalism...that's your party! When they are given, we expect the money to be payed back as it has been in the past.

vitaminp| 2.22.11 @ 1:20AM

So close, and yet so far. In reality, the core of the conservative-liberal divide is their fundamental value systems.

Liberals most cherished value is equality. Their primary tool for fighting inequality is government’s power to legislate and to tax. In the grand liberal strategy the "safety net" is really just one way of promoting equality by taking from those who have and giving, in the long term, to ever more people. Liberals' vision for the future includes more egalitarian society driven by a larger and more redistributive government.

In contrast, conservatives’ most cherished value is liberty. Their strategy for achieving it includes restraining the power of government to coerce its citizens. Reducing taxes is a key conservative tenet because it promotes liberty by letting people keep more of what they earn. Conservatives' vision of the future includes a smaller, less coercive government watched over by a freer, more self-directed, and less constrained citizenry. The value that conservatives place on liberty also explains their willingness to confront tyranny around the world.

Both sides have moments of inconsistency driven by short term expediency, but ultimately the two sides' goals for America are irreconcilable because their values are.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 6:26PM

Yeah, it's got a coherent message alright. Use taxpayer dollars to fund programs that continue to fail their objectives then ask the tax payer for more tax dollars to create more programs to fix the problems that the other programs could not fix. If anyone complains that they are taxed enough then call them racist and nazi's. Your message is loud and clear.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 6:40PM

Simon, conservatism is not libertarianism. Some collective governmental action is necessary, though strictly limited and decentralized.

Bigfoot, conservatives favor lower tax rates for everyone, rich or poor. They don't favor PROGRESSIVE taxation. That's why they aren't PROGRESSIVES. Conservatives favor equal treatment for all.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 9:09PM

Vern, I agree..I thought I said that..sorry if I did not make that clear.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.11 @ 2:54AM

No, Liberalism desires to use the tax code to punish achievers. That's the major problem. Taxation should only be used to raise the money required for governmental functions that are necessary. Liberals would want high taxes even if it could be demonstrated that lower taxes would raise more revenue (as had been done under Reagan).

Occam's Tool| 2.22.11 @ 2:56AM

Incidentally, Liberals, like HST and FDR, used to be PRO-American power. Somewhere that changed.

Lord Black has written great biographies of FDR and Nixon.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 6:30PM

It is and always been a reactionary movement! It can never accept the status quo and must continually progress in a dialectic manner until it completely destroys that which it rebels against including itself.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 6:11PM

Why because you say so? Yes, government enforced morality is big governemnt when it does not reflect the majority of the people nor the will of the majority of people. Don' t be an ass. Government is involved in the enforcement of morality every day via its laws regarding murder to pedophile criminal acts. This is a Republic self governing nation of laws that reflect the values and morality of a people. Sophmoric. You did not address any of my rebuttal. As a typical progressive you ignored all my points and when on with more falsehoods, historical revisions, and the usual liberal lecture. G.W.Bush does not represent the totality of conservative thought or belief nor is anyone defending his nation building as you call it. Like his border policy and his associated attitudes, he adopted many liberal progressive positions..all of which most of us disdain. were not discussing individual presidents and their policys. If we were I would need to point out to you Cinton's, the "era of big government is over" and the "welfare state must be reformed." as evidence that he was a conservative and liberalism must be irrational, inconsistent, and contradictory. You make the lame argument that a bunch of progressive republicans and RINO politicians somehow represent conservative thought and the conservative movement. They do not. I am not going to sit here an defend them. What the hell do you think the Tea Party has been protesting? as for the other false premises...1no one is asying not raise taxes on anyone no matter what nor have they ever said that...both Bush and Reagan did just that at cerain points. What we are saying is we are taxed enough already and we would like this government to stop wasting our money and using it very inefficiently! Social security and medicare was sold by your group a social insurance not an entitlement or right. some conservatives believe that we must honor these commitments before phasing these unsustainable programs out. That's not being inconsistent but realistic and fair minded. As far as balancing he budget, we can start with the department of education which has done you a disservice. This governemnt is out of control, widly inefficient, and too large. So, I submit to you that you are nothing but another socialist troll out here to stir up the pot with another diatribe of lame arguments and falsehoods.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 6:42PM

By the way, you are correct in that I do take offense. What I find offensive is your typical sny, liberal obfuscation, your false pretenses, and false sincerity. You are not out here to learn anything but agitate, propagandize, slander, and aggravate. This is your trade. Your father Karl taught you well. True debate, an exchange of ideas, and truth means nothing to you. How do I know this? Well, because I use to be you. I read all the same books, marched and protested, hung out with the same confused, angry, useful idiots..touting the same criticisms and lame arguments with the same arrogance and certainty.

bigfoot9p6| 2.21.11 @ 7:45PM

I would love to "learn something." Unfortunately comment boards such as this one are full of people such as yourself who have nothing to teach. You are well practiced at the Fox News debate style - attack, demagogue, name-call, and ridicule those who disagree with you, and above all make sure not to include any actual facts. My fathers name is Martin by the way.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 8:50PM

What facts did you present? More sny liberal obfuscation? Then may I ask you what are you doing out here, son of Martin BigFootinThe Mouth? Get lost.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 9:52PM

BigFootinthemouth: I bet your gonna tell us next that Wisconsin is actually going to have a budget surplus starting next year!

Nathan Schulz| 2.21.11 @ 11:27AM

"The assassination in 1914 of the distinguished French socialist leader Jean Jaures, for advising against a headlong plunge into general war, was a grim harbinger of what was to come: ineffectual socialist pacifism that facilitated the advance of totalitarian regimes of hitherto undreamed of evil."

This is completely wrong. In France, it was the socialists who were ready to fight Germany. As the Popular Front said, "Fascism means War." In England, the Conservative party was the Party of appeasement. Winston Churchill didn't support appeasement, but he was a former member of the Liberal party and supported many of their modern military spending policies.

Stormzeye| 2.21.11 @ 11:44AM

Mr. Black, your writing style is muscular, clear and a pleasure to read, though it sometimes feels like taking a drink from a fire hose. I believe that in crediting FDR with alleviating the unemployment in the US you fail to note that it was the manufacturing industry that responded to the wars in Spain, Africa then the invasion of Poland that, in preparation for our later involvement in the war, actually caused the US to get back to work. It was FDR's re-building of the Arsenal of Democracy not his failed liberal/social policies that saved us from deepening poverty.

Stormzeye| 2.21.11 @ 11:46AM

P.S. Thank you for an intelligent article that has resulted in some great comments and lively discussion.

Timothy Norling| 2.21.11 @ 11:56AM

I think a mostly accurate and entertaining article from Mr. Black.

His belief that FDR doubled the economy and brought unemployment to .5% is specious; but for WWII, there is no evidence the depression was lifting in any meaningful way - and some evidence his policies inhibited economic growth.

Secondly, I am heartened to see that much maligned President given his due, and of course I speak of Richard Nixon. There were flaws, to be sure, but some remarkable achievements and some creative domestic policies (revenue sharing, for instance).

Yosemeti Sam| 2.21.11 @ 12:19PM

" The Decline of Liberalism ...."

On that day when they solemnly declare their PICKPOCKETING days of the electorate are over.

Stepan| 2.21.11 @ 12:39PM

I stopped at the part about kissing the feet of FDR.

This is standard liberal-progressive rot that has been taught in the universities for decades. Do we really need more of this propaganda invading our minds in the 21st century?

No wonder twenty-somethings are scratching their heads and wondering what happened to all the things to which they have been entitled for so long.

simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 2:10PM

Liberalism saved the world! Thanks..spit up all over my computer on that one!

JP| 2.21.11 @ 2:46PM

Just to be historically accurate, FDR died before he could implement the second phase of his Progressive Agenda. Knowing that the War was almost over (and having much faith that Uncle Joe Stalin would behave himself), FDR gave his infamous 2nd Bill of Rights Speech (Jan 1944). In that speech he declared that it was his intention to put in place a whole host of new enumerated rights (ie rights to a living wage; freedom from unfair monopolies and competition; rights to guarenteed housing, education, and medical care, etc...).

His agenda would even make Barry blush it was so aggressive and over the top. The New Deal Intellectuals were besides themselves with joy; his agenda guarenteed that a permanant Ivy League elite would be running everything from the public utilities to the local doughnut shop. But he died before the war ended. And Truman, to his eternal credit, scrapped the 2nd Bill of Rights. The New Dealers never forgave Truman. But within 3 years, the nation's economy recovered from FDR.

skip| 2.21.11 @ 3:58PM

"The Decline Of Conrad Black"

How silly of me to confuse the U.S. economic juggernaut of the 1940's and 1950's, that was a result of supply provided for the demand generated due to the occurence of World War II, and incidentally was so powerful it pulled the nation out of a self imposed depression in the process, when I should recognize it was because of the success of FDR's policies and continued by HST that were socialistic in principle and had caused the self imposed depression to begin with.

That it is possible any individual with a modicum of intelligence and honesty could believe this drivel is hard to believe.

That Conrad Black is the individual stating this drivel with absolute certainty is disconcerting.

Dane | 2.21.11 @ 6:01PM

Your claim that FDR's policies, and by insinuation his New Deal policies, reduced unemployment from 30 to .5% is disengenious. "Full twelve years" misleads. It was not the New Deal that produced such employment, but the production demands of WW II and its concommitant "employment" of several million men, and women, in strictly military jobs.

Brian| 2.21.11 @ 7:01PM

What country in Black talking about. The left control all the reins of power. Even when conservatives do get elected they are hobbled and serve only as caretakers of the establishment until the next wave of liberalism wrecks havoc.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.21.11 @ 7:23PM

Mr. Black
Sorry, but you are full of sh*t!

You spout half-truths, and quarter -truths, and call them 'truth'.

Slavery sucks. Slavery to government sucks.

We gotta' thread the needle.

Vita Men| 2.21.11 @ 8:55PM

The FREEMASONIC social-Darwinist construct
otherwise known as 'Liberalism' was from its
inception, concerned with the sleazy 'ideals'
of 'FREE TRADE' --and served as a reasonable
and enlightened mask for not just the industrial
enslavement of the British population, but the
massive cultural and economic destruction
of India, China, Africa etc.

The Arminian Heresy, and the 'doctrine of works'
so near and dear even now to the hearts of our
EUGENICS driven, TAX FREE, 'charitable'
capstone foundations ---is 'the' CON for
TOTAL CONTROL.

KNOW your history.

SEE where it's coming from.

AGAIN, follow that thread ---Arminian Heresy
(BTW--the Rockefeller family came out of the
very center of this back in the 1800's though
NEVER examined) ---'Doctrine of 'benevolence'
and 'good works' (i.e. DENIAL of the Holy Spirit)
---and FREEMASONIC 'shadow government'
manipulation and control towards the aim of
World Govenment and forced EUGENICS.

They are INSEPERABLE---------

Vern Crisler| 2.21.11 @ 9:14PM

Vitaman, are you serious, or are you a liberal pretending to be a kook conspiracy theorist in the hopes of discrediting AmSpec?

Mark D| 2.22.11 @ 12:09AM

Wow, what a well-written piece. I didn't think there was any political writer out there who "got it" this well. Conrad Black may have his flaws as a person, but his understanding of U.S. politics is PERFECT. FDR saved us from "real socialism" and Truman was a strong liberal President as well. The Democrats went from Liberals to Socialists in the 1960's and they've been paying the price ever since...except for Clinton was basically Republican-light in his final 6 years in office. He understands how underrated Nixon was and how great Reagan was...he understands what a lousy President George H.W. Bush was and what a poor domestic President George W. Bush was despite his seemingly CORRECT worldview relative to the threat of Islamic Terrorism. Conrad Black just gets it...

Mark| 2.22.11 @ 8:44AM

Black should know better -- all he does is divide the world, and everyone in it, into good and bad, and naturallly, the bad are the liberals that differ with him.

In other words, he and his heroes are from God, and those who are not, are devils. His thinking is that stupid.

For example, saying Vietnam was "a liberal" thing is utter nonsense. Our idiotic actions in Vietnam (we backed the wrong side) were a result of deception and sucking up to DeGaule. We lied to Vietnam, we lied to the public, and we killed who knows how many millions in the processs.

To call that a liberal idea is irrational. As Black knows, FDR was for NOT giving Vietnam to France, which is exactly what we did. FDR was not going to give DeGaule the sweat off his dog's paws. When Truman came in, the US virtually gave De Gaule the country of Vietnam. Big mistake.

There was no liberals advocating giving DeGaul anything. In fact, liberals were against the Vietnam war, and if it had been public at the time that we were giving DeGaul a nation of millions, we would have paraded against it, like we did later.

So, Black, learn a little history, pull your head out of the anti-liberal tunnel, and start telling the truth.

It might be a pleasant change for you.

Vita Men| 2.22.11 @ 10:58PM

----NO DOUBT high-Mason/Knights of Malta
Conrad Black neatly dodges the FACT that
unionism is a controlled oppositon front,
much like High MASON Marx and ENGLES
'communism'.

Unionism only makes the sense it does in
the context of coporate monopoly.

DROP the 'capitalism' concept and its justifications in FIAT currency and the
illusion of usury and fractonal reserve
lending practices (all FRAUDULENT
mods of control throug debt) ---and bring back FREE ENTERPRISE and inviolable NATIONAL
SOEVRIEGNTY.

Seperate the State from this Church of 'SHADOW
GOVERNMENT'!