When do democracies become decisive? It’s pretty rare. The uncivil standoff that has been most of American politics since the last presidential landslide — Reagan’s colossal win in 1984 — is the norm. But even that win did not give the GOP control of Congress. And the gigantic Republican midterm wins in 1994 and 2010 were not followed by the expulsion of the Democratic presidential incumbent in the next election. The people hedged their bets.
But occasionally, something brings about a sudden shift and there is an irresistible and united impetus towards a goal — or away from one.
Reports now tell us that Biden is planning to end all pretense of helping Ukraine, Israel, and the Arab states that embraced peace and turned their back on terrorism in favor of a pact with Iran written to the exact specifications of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
America was not keen on fighting Hitler, even after his aggression was clear for all to see. Charles Lindbergh spoke for many when he dismissed Hitler’s threat, saying, “There is no Genghis Khan or Xerxes marching against our Western nations.” But in the wake of Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war on us, there was near unanimity on the need to fight and the commitment to victory even as the war proved long, bloody, and expensive.
One can go back in English history to the days of King James II. He had won the hearts of the people through his gallantry and success as a naval commander. He was the brother of the king who had reestablished the constitutional order in England after years of civil war and dictatorship. Even though England was overwhelmingly and militantly Protestant, James’ conversion to Catholicism did not lose him the people’s affection. They believed his assurances that he would not try to interfere with their religion, as bloody Queen Mary had done the previous century.
But then, by one action after another, James showed what he would not admit to publicly — he was purging Protestants from all important offices and he was building up an army to guarantee against popular revolt. As his intentions seemed to get clearer each day, something happened in the nation. After a dramatic increase in tension, suddenly, as Churchill wrote, “City after city rose in rebellion. By one spontaneous, tremendous convulsion, the English nation repudiated James.” The Glorious Revolution, as it would be called, was over very quickly, with nearly no bloodshed. The king fled to France, never to return, and William and Mary jointly took the throne.
Are we near such a dramatic repudiation now, a decisive shift?
There may be something about the latest plans of the administration that could very well release such a storm.
Reports now tell us that Biden is planning to end all pretense of helping Ukraine, Israel, and the Arab states that embraced peace and turned their back on terrorism in favor of a pact with Iran written to the exact specifications of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It will release billions to an Iran that will not be required to end its sponsorship of terror all over the world, relinquish its rockets, or refrain from building actual nuclear weapons for more than a few years. Even for the little time the nuke ban will be in place, there will be no requirements for meaningful verification.
The pact will ensconce Putin’s nuclear energy behemoth as a chief beneficiary of the released billions, making the sanctions imposed on Russia a joke.
Very few people outside the administration’s nomenklatura see this as anything other than an American defeat of the first order, as ignominious as the flight from Vietnam; in all likelihood, far more so. There are no actors on the international stage more infamous than Iran and Russia, none whose criminality is widely recognized and feared.
And for what gain? For a self-congratulating cadre of wise men to prove that they can achieve something they know has never and would never be approved by the vast majority of the American people or, for that matter, the democracies of the world?
Perhaps there is something more. Even the New York Times admitted in a cowardly and backhanded way that the Hunter Biden laptop and its evidence of odious misconduct of the Bidens on the world stage is real and relevant. No way that the KGB colonel does not have a great deal of kompromat, and perhaps he is calling the marker in. Is there a more reasonable explanation? This is at least a working hypothesis to be tested against the evidence of breaking developments.
Can a policy built on deception succeed? Deception it certainly is, this Iran policy, carefully moved forward by Obama under the radar of popular perception, even managing to fool former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, whom Obama lied to face-to-face when asked pointed questions about his aims with Iran. Dershowitz believed Obama and endorsed him on that basis in 2012, and has never forgiven him for his deceit.
What a smooth and brilliant Obama could pull off is one thing. What a gaffe-prone, bumbling, and not-so-sharp Biden can pull off is another. His unbroken string of policy disasters has worsened the lives of almost all Americans outside the ruling elite, and poll after poll indicates they know it.
The structure of his power is hollowed out. It may not withstand the blow of the ignominious surrender that this new Iran agreement looks to be. A pact reeking of treachery to Americans and American commitments and ideals may cause a break, a sudden and powerful realignment of the American people that will cause a thorough cleansing of all those associated with this treacherous deal.
John C. Wohlstetter’s article here in these pages of The American Spectator last week made an unusual and intriguing suggestion that America explore constitutional ways of ending this disastrous Biden-Harris administration and replacing it with a national government.
I am not entirely convinced of the constitutionality of the methods he suggested. Nevertheless, it may well be that the pressure to find a constitutional path for swift and decisive change may be so overwhelming that avenues never before utilized may suddenly open. The Constitution may again show itself as the instrument of the will of a united and committed nation, ready to reclaim its democracy and its promise of liberty.
Work for it.