By every objective measure, America is in decline. But liberals
insist that it is moving “forward.” The modern philosophy of
progress is Darwinian, holding that the latest development, whether
of a country or a species, is always the best one. Mutations are
assumed to be perfective, not destructive.
Obama is the one “we have been waiting for,” chanted his
followers in 2008. They identified him as the agent of the final
phase in liberalism’s revolution. In 2012, Obama drew upon this
revolutionary hope again, coining “forward” as his campaign slogan.
The rhetoric was slightly more subdued — he toned down the talk of
“fundamentally transforming” America — but it still rested on the
same revolutionary promise. No coherent criterion defines Obama’s
notion of revolutionary progress. It is whatever liberalism deems
good at the moment. This results in trendy liberal causes clanking
up a bit against each other: a progressive, for example, can be at
once anti-smoking and pro-marijuana. Second-hand smoke is deadly;
but drug legalization poses no harms. Celebrities like comedian
Bill Maher burbled over the passage of marijuana legalization bills
as part of the new enlightenment under Obama. So apparently the
Democrats can be the party of “preventative” health care,
anti-obesity campaigns, and recreational drug use all at the same
time.
“It is dying but it laughs,” said the Romans of their collapsing
empire. The chortling of the Bill Mahers last week deserves a
similar line. The smugness seems to grow in proportion to America’s
problems and pathologies. Their assertions about Obama’s socialism
stimulating the economy or gay marriage strengthening the family
are on the same level as their claim that pot is good for public
health.
America is not going forward but backwards — back to the
“abortion, amnesty, and acid” of George McGovern’s 1970s. Not much
has changed since then, except that the radicals who espoused free
contraceptives, free love, and drugs now wear expensive suits.
Desperate to win in a declining culture, prominent Republicans
have already called for a more “modern” party. It only took a
couple of days for them to embrace the wisdom of the Democrats and
call for a relaxed abortion stance among other “evolutions.” But
why stop there? If the purpose of politics is not to win on sound
principles (so that problems can actually be solved when you do
win) but to win through pandering, the Republicans should discard
their whole platform. After all, fiscal conservatism didn’t fare
very well either. America could then move forward even faster
toward destruction, with two liberal parties of varying degrees,
jostling with each other in a competition to see who can deliver
bread and circuses to the mob to greater cheers.
On the day that the British empire lost India its prime minister
was said to be at the movies. On the day America lost its consulate
in Benghazi David Petraeus was at a private screening for Ben
Affleck’s Argo, according to Fox News. But it turns out
that he needed to get his mind off more than just America’s
decline. He was hiding out from a ticking scandal that would expose
a new dimension of it. Not that liberals consider his meltdown
evidence of decline. Indeed, they see it as an opportunity for more
progress. “Get Petraeus back” and “grow up, America,” say the
liberal chorus. In a liberal utopia, runs the argument, no one is
subject to blackmail because nothing is a sin to conceal. So a
little more education is apparently needed for the American people
to take these scandals in stride.
A few liberals suggested America return to the good old days of
JFK when the liberal monolith running the media protected
celebrated figures. There is even a hint of J. Edgar Hoover
nostalgia in the criticism of the FBI’s handling of the matter, as
if to say that Hoover ran a more discreet, less oafish agency.
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin mused, “I wish we could go back to
the time when the private lives of our public figures were relevant
only if they directly affected their public responsibilities.”
The scandal has now widened to include the “inappropriate”
e-mails of another general. One would have thought such categories
irrelevant to Obama’s sexually liberated military. If sexuality is
an inherently undisciplined area of life beyond human control —
the premise of the gay liberationist movement — why all the fuss?
How is “inappropriate” determined? The proponents of progress never
explain such matters. Maybe Obama will punish these wayward
womanizers by pursuing a policy of naming more female generals.
Lifting all restrictions on women in combat is surely the next
progressive goal, a reward Obama could bestow upon them for having
received their vote. Gone is the “war on women,” as Obama moves
forward toward women in war.
