-
The Arranged Teddy Roosevelt
June 17, 2010 | 40 comments
-
He Did It His Way
September 15, 2009 | 7 comments
-
Relentless Partisanship
March 23, 2006 | 0 comments
Feature
The Decline of Liberalism
A history of past greatness at home and abroad, and, since 1960, of growing weakness, hubris, and failure.
(Page 2 of 2)
RICHARD NIXON ENDED Mutual Assured Destruction by starting anti-missile deployment; pursuing what he called “nuclear sufficiency,” which in practice was a restoration of U.S. nuclear superiority, based on technological advantages, especially Multiple, Independently Targeted warheads (MIRVs) on the same missiles; and using this strength to “build down” through the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks process, thus impressing hawks with his enhancement of American military strength and doves with the greatest arms limitations agreement in history, in 1972.
Vietnam by 1966 was killing 200 to 400 American draftees every week, with no prospect of victory. The greatest military blunder in U.S. history was failure to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, when public opinion would have supported it. President Johnson effectively gave up in Vietnam in October 1966 when he offered a joint withdrawal of all non-South Vietnamese forces from the South. Ho Chi Minh declined this, because he wished to defeat the U.S. directly, signaling a decisive victory in the Cold War of the Communists over the West. He could have won his declared objectives by accepting the joint withdrawal and then returning six months later. He knew the U.S. would not commit ground forces again to the war. That he did not accept Johnson’s offer demonstrates the fervor of his ambition to defeat the United States itself.
Richard Nixon handed the Vietnam War over to the South Vietnamese, bought them time to ramp up their war effort by wiping out the North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia as he drew down U.S forces, and resumed heavy bombing of North Vietnam when that country overtly invaded the South in 1972. Nixon opened relations with China, which helped propel a reduction in tensions with the USSR, and he detached both the Chinese and the Russians from support of Hanoi’s effort to defeat the U.S., as opposed to just unifying Vietnam. Nixon enabled the South to hold its own on the ground with heavy U.S. air support. He ended the Vietnam War with a non-Communist government in place in Saigon and believed it could have been preserved if the U.S. had retained its readiness to respond with heavy air reprisals to a renewed North Vietnamese invasion of the South. For that reason, he sent the peace accord to the Senate for ratification, although he was not obliged to do so, to gain Senate support for the enforcement of the treaty if necessary.
The great watershed of modern American politics was the tawdry Watergate affair. Historians will long debate whether Nixon actually committed crimes or whether, as he claimed, he committed “mistakes unworthy of a president” but not crimes. Certainly, the impeachment counts presented to the House Judiciary Committee were outrages of partisan hysteria, and liberals in the Congress and the national media grossly exaggerated the significance of what was uncovered. Assisted by Nixon’s inexplicable mismanagement of the affair, they hounded Nixon from office, diminished the presidency as an institution, and then, for good measure, cut off all aid to South Vietnam, ensuring that that country would fall to the Communists, that the United States would be completely humiliated, and, although they would not precisely have foreseen this, that millions would die in the killing fields of Cambodia, and drown when forced to flee Vietnam as boat people. And for Watergate and the debacle in Vietnam, the liberal political and media establishment took a decades-long bow and claimed the status of redeemers of American democracy and integrity in government.
Nixon had saved America from the liberal debacle in Vietnam and the self-imposed cul-de-sac in the arms race, and Nixon ended school segregation without falling into the catastrophe of compulsory school busing between districts as was being ordered by the courts. He proposed, but did not get to enact, welfare reform, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, which he foresaw would become another faddish leftist hobby horse if conservatives were not sensible, abolished the draft, and reduced the crime rate. He had taken a great deal of the liberals’ clothes, while holding the conservative majority in place, and his reelection by the greatest plurality in American history in 1972 (18 million votes and 49 states) showed the extent to which liberalism’s failures under Kennedy and Johnson had been recognized and corrected.
THOUGH MANY LIBERALS were doubtless sincere in believing that Nixon was a menace to constitutional government, and he did have some completely unacceptable notions of executive privilege in national security matters (such as the claimed right to ransack the Brookings Institution and break into the office of a dissident Vietnam consultant’s psychotherapist), Nixon was a patriotic American, a very capable president, and he did much more to stabilize constitutional government than to undermine it. The effect of the Watergate and Vietnam disasters was to criminalize policy differences and help turn the United States into a prosecutocracy terrorized by overzealous U.S. attorneys; propel the media to depths of investigative cynicism that made the lives of anyone trying to accomplish anything newsworthy unprecedentedly difficult; temporarily reduce the executive branch to less than its constitutionally allotted position of equality with the legislature and judiciary; cause scores of millions of Americans to be disillusioned with government and to abandon the national media for competing and new technology rivals as they became available; and introduce a period of aggressive Soviet expansion in southern Africa, Central America, and Afghanistan.
But Watergate and Vietnam hastened the decline of American liberalism. Jimmy Carter squeaked into office in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate and failed in his quest for a more liberal state and a safer world through accommodation of the USSR. Ronald Reagan led the definitive takeover of the Republican Party by conservatives; he was as much to the right of Nixon as Nixon had been to the right of Eisenhower. He cut taxes and promised a defensive anti-missile system that effectively cracked the Soviet Union completely. Unable to envision a further increase in the percentage of GDP devoted to defense, scarcely able to maintain its hold over Eastern Europe and its own restive ethnic minorities, the Soviet Union quietly imploded and international Communism collapsed, as China, partly under the influence unleashed by Nixon’s opening to it, became a hotbed of state capitalism. Reagan led the country to huge productivity increases, the creation of 18 million net new jobs, and the adaptation of the American economy to new techniques and technologies. Conservatism was triumphant.
Americans calling themselves conservative as opposed to liberal were now at a ratio of about three to two. After the chaotic and violent convention of 1968, the Democratic Party took the nomination process away from the party bosses who had chosen and supported Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, as well as the less successful but respected Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey, and the elevation of a very improbable sequence of candidates resulted, from George McGovern in 1972 to Michael Dukakis. After Reagan’s vice president, George H. W. Bush, succeeded him and mismanaged the economy, broke his pledge of “no new taxes,” and ran a very inept reelection campaign after allowing an eccentric Texan billionaire to seize a chunk of Republican support, the Democrats won with a young, Ivy League-educated Southern governor, who ran as a “new Democrat,” which in policy terms, meant essentially a Republican. Bill Clinton tried a turn to the left, especially on health care, was beaten badly in the midterm elections in 1994, and then produced budget surpluses, engaged more policemen, and proved too agile for the Republicans to catch. The country was, however, and in the new Watergate tradition, reduced to a demeaning impeachment hearing based largely on the president’s rather undiscriminating extramarital sex life. In the midst of it, the Republican leaders in the Congress finally rolled back much of the shambles of the Great Society and rammed through comprehensive welfare reform.
The 2000 election was an uncertain draw between Clinton’s vice president and Bush’s son. The eight Bush years that followed were clouded by the preoccupation with terrorism after the suicide attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Bush mismanaged the budgetary deficit, and the Clinton-originated practices of immense current account deficits and the encouragement of the issuance of trillions of dollars of worthless real estate-backed debt, supposedly to facilitate home ownership, came home to roost in severe recession while the country’s entire conventional armed forces capability was mired for five years in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Barack Obama is the result, after he deftly took the Clintons’ party out from underneath them and liberated white America from its guilt complex after 350 years of mistreatment of blacks (and as a bonus, liberated them also from having to listen to charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel as African American leaders).
Mr. Obama broke the glass ceiling barring non-whites from the highest office but tried to use the economic crisis to justify a sharp turn to the left, expansion of the state in health care and the environment, tax increases, and outright bribes (“refundable tax credits”), to the indigent. The resulting political and economic debacle gave a no-name, leaderless Republican Party a huge sweep as a reward for unimaginative denigration of the administration in November’s elections, and if Obama is to have a chance of reelection, it will be by turning the balance of this term into, as has already begun, a tutorial from Bill Clinton on how to masquerade as a Republican. All polls now indicate that there are twice as many self-designated conservatives as liberals, but also almost twice as many independents as liberals.
AMERICANS ARE WORRIED about debt and tax increases, distrustful of government regulation, concerned at extreme income disparity and the loss of huge chunks of business, including energy supplies, to foreigners, and they associate liberalism with extravagance, the use of the welfare system to buy the votes of the underperforming (whether with a legitimate excuse or not), the belittling of America in the world, and a general erosion of cherished values. And the last liberal leader the people really liked was John F. Kennedy, and in that they were largely buying a public relations confidence trick, amplified by the horrible tragedy of his premature death. If the Republicans have a plausible leader, and the Bushes were no world-beaters, their program will win for them. Leaders of unusual stature or agility, such as Eisenhower, Nixon at his best, and Reagan, win heavy majorities.
Liberalism saved America and led it to its greatest days under Roosevelt and Truman. And it essentially continued under Eisenhower, a nonpartisan war hero who pretended to be above politics. Under Kennedy and Johnson and their inept Democratic successors, liberalism ceased to be perceived as helping the deserving and instead became taking money from those who had earned it and giving it to those who hadn’t in exchange for their votes. Nixon saved the country from the Kennedy-Johnson failure to redefine liberalism successfully, but freakishly squandered the political credit for doing so. Reagan won the battle for the conservatives against the liberals, and the Democrats have only won since when they ran an ostensibly moderate candidate against a very weak Republican. (Bob Dole and John McCain, whatever their merits as senators, were hopeless blunderbusses as presidential nominees.)
Liberalism will revive, as conservatism did, when it redefines itself as something that is new, looks likely to succeed, favors economic growth, and is no longer tainted by envy, hypocrisy, and the mere bribery of voting blocs. This will take a leader of the stature of a Roosevelt or Reagan. No such person is now visible, in either party, but neither were they seen in that light before they were elected and became candidates for Mount Rushmore.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (103) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Conrad Black
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/21/the-decline-of-liberalism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Consternated Conferences
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
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"
"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
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'!
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:07AM
is good
William| 1.13.12 @ 12:09AM
Neither Liberalism nor Conservatism will work in a Country that can't produce job; you can’t produce jobs with a runaway EPA.
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 5:33PM
"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."