Herbert London

Herbert London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, and author of the book The Transformational Decade (University Press of America).

In a recent book entitled Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students Its Intended To Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, the authors identify reforms that could make a difference in dealing with this ticklish racial issue, reforms, as I see it, that are eminently sensible.

First, and perhaps foremost, is a call for transparency. As the Gutter case indicated the Supreme Court favors a transparency mandate. Universities are theoretically supposed to prove that consideration of race in admissions is "narrowly tailored" to promote a healthy diversity and, as significantly, does not unduly harm any racial group. Since full disclosure is often honored more in the breach than in practice, it is difficult to know when racial preferences are applied.

Second, the authors maintain that "the racial preferences a university uses be no larger than the average size of preferences based on an individual applicant's financial need or socioeconomic status." In other words, socioeconomic diversity is as compelling an interest for admissions as racial diversity.

Last, is a recommendation for a prohibition on strict race-based aid awards - in doing so, universities would suggest that the diversity they seek goes beyond skin color and refers instead to an opportunity for those in real financial need, a condition that may disproportionately affect minority students without, at the same time, relying on race the sole admissions criterion.

For decades this debate over affirmative action has raged. In my opinion, the experiment to redress the wrongs of the past was an interesting, but failed effort. As the authors note, racial "preferences hurt underrepresented minorities more than they help them." Very often minorities are put in a position where they cannot compete effectively, a point often made by Thomas Sowell. And it is also noted that even when minority members compete effectively, there is the lingering perception that success is related to affirmative action.

In this matter, as in so many others, in which the rhetoric has reached a fever pitch, it is difficult to get hardheaded realism into the court perspective. This book does precisely that; it advances an argument from two former advocates of affirmative action who have come to the conclusion, based on empirical evidence, that they were wrong. Moreover, they realize wiping the slate clean through an absolute reversal will not work. Hence the sensible reform proposals they have articulated. I hope someone on the Supreme Court is reading this book. *

The following is a summary of the April May 2013 issue of the St. Croix Review:

In "Image and Substance" Barry MacDonald presents examples of skillful politics by first-term Republican Senators.

Allan Brownfeld, in "The Imperial Presidency: A Bipartisan Threat to Constitutional Government," questions whether the president should have the authority without check to kill an American citizen with a drone strike; in "Concerns Are Growing about the Use of Drones - Both Abroad, and in the Future at Home," he points out the use of drones by the government, law enforcement, and private individuals will pose a threat to privacy in the future; in "Despite Declining Public Approval, Congress Continues to Do (Self-serving) Business as Usual," he says politicians are motivated by self-interest - getting reelected or gaining more power - not the pubic interest, and they will remain so until the incentive structure changes; in "Absence of Fathers Is Leading to Many of the Social Problems We Face," he lays out damaging consequences, especially to blacks.

Paul Kengor, "The End of the Reagan Era?" emphasizes the American public's "schizophrenic voting behavior," and he has an optimistic take away; in "The Fiscal Cliff: What Would Reagan Do?" he believes that Reagan would never raise tax rates; in "On Russia's Adoption Ban," he suspects the ban reflects Vladimir Putin's panic at Russia's shrinking population - a legacy of abortion; in "The Presidential Blame-Game," he notes examples of low and high character in the behavior of six presidents; in "Hugo Chavez: Faithful to Death," he writes a final assessment of the Venezuelan dictator.

Mark Hendrickson, in "The Democrats Are in Denial Over Their Spending Addiction," accuses not only Democrats but also Republicans of being on a spending binge; in "Obama's State of the Union was Well Designed to Gull the Gullible," he fact checks the president's many statements; in "Erasing Ronald Reagan: The Illiberal War on Truth," he shows how the Left destroys the reputations of their opponents, after they die, and how they "mutilate" the truth; in "Brent Musburger, Phil Mickelson and Me: Encounters with Political Correctness," he writes about how aggressive, obnoxious, and pervasive political correctness is; in "Obama Can Make His Own Reality, But Laws of the Universe Won't Necessarily Adhere," he surveys the many Obama fantasies for which Americans will pay dearly.

Herbert London, in "Everyone Is a Judge," compares our elections to "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars."

M. Lester O'Shea, in "What Needs to Be Done and How It Can Be Done," broadly surveys present issues and challenges facing Republicans, and he fashions a course of action.

In "Reconciling Economic Policy and Defense Requirements," Murray Weidenbaum says that our spending on the military has been trending downward for a long time, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

In "New Vistas for the Sexual Revolution," Thomas Martin comments on the question in Germany whether animals are able consent to sex with humans.

Jigs Gardner, in "Casting Up Accounts," ponders his entire experience farming in Vermont before he moves on to new ventures.

In "Robert Caro's Johnson," Jigs Gardner describes Caro's volumes on President Lyndon Johnson's personality: "crude, coarse, driven by an outsize ego, relentless in his drive for power."

Bobby Cole, in the "Americans at Work Series: A Manager of Plants," explains the business of growing plants on order in greenhouses.

Bobby Cole

The Occupy Wall Street phenomenon and the nonsense arising from it has made it apparent that too many of us are ignorant of our fellows' working lives. So in the series, "Americans at Work," workers explain, in their own words, their jobs, their motivations, and their satisfactions.

An odd title, but an accurate one - I manage the growing and shipping of thousands of plants to New York customers of Bonnie Plant Farm in Alabama. I started out working for another plant farm down there, and when that was bought out by Bonnie seventeen years ago, I went along. The story of the Bonnie Farm is inspiring, a real example of self-reliance flourishing in the free enterprise system. In 1919, newlyweds Livingston and Bonnie Paulk, farming in Alabama, were looking around for a crop that would bring in some off-season income, and they tried raising cabbage plants for local sale. It was a great success and they followed it up by planting more seed the next year. Gradually they added different plants - onions, strawberries, potatoes. Until the 1970s, almost all the plants the company sold were field-grown, but by then there was growing demand for potted plants grown in greenhouses, so the company began building greenhouses. By the 1980s, Bonnie was delivering plants to thirteen southern states. Then mass-market retailers, what are called big box stores, opened garden centers, and Bonnie rose to the new demand by expanding into more states. Today the company has over 70 growing stations in 40 states and two Canadian provinces.

The New York station near Utica, the one I manage, has 48 large greenhouses serving all of New York as far south as Yonkers. The company's largest account in the whole country is mine, on Long Island. Understand that we don't do the selling; there's a crew of salesmen for that. How does it work? How do I manage plants? In February I come north and open the greenhouses and begin gathering the staff, 40 or 50 men. We have eleven trucks for delivery with two men to a truck, and about the same number working in the greenhouses. We know what we're contracted to deliver and when: so many thousands of plants due at such a store at such a time, and so many due elsewhere the next day, and so on.

We start squash, melons, cucumbers from seed ourselves, but all the rest of the herbs and vegetables (we don't grow many flowers) are started in plant cells in Alabama and trucked to us here, where we transplant them to their final containers: four-inch peat pots for tomatoes and some herbs, three-inch for melons, squash, and cucumbers, plant cells for cole crops like cabbages and broccoli and Brussels sprouts. We don't just grow a few varieties, either. We carry, for instance, 53 varieties of tomatoes, some of which we've developed ourselves, and we raise varieties suitable for every climate we cover.

Understand that we don't have a product sitting on a shelf ready to be shipped out: we have to grow that product and grow it well, and have it in tip-top shape when it leaves here for the customer. The plants can't be approximately right - they have to be as perfect as can be. These are plants, subject to all the ills that can happen to living things just starting their growth cycle. And believe me, greenhouses are great places for incubating diseases and insects, with all that warmth and moisture. So we spray all the greenhouses three times a week, and there's a wizard of a plant pathologist up in Michigan we can call on to advise us when we're stumped by a problem.

All plants are watered by hand every day, and there's fertilizer in the water, 8-4-4, which means eight parts nitrogen, four parts phosphate, and four parts potassium. In the place where I used to work, they tried automatic watering, but they couldn't count on the coverage; some plants would always be missed. That's what I mean when I say the work is careful and conscientious. I walk through every greenhouse three times a day, and I'm not just taking a break from desk work- I'm inspecting the plants, checking their growth, feeling the moisture in the soil, checking the temperature. I worked for an old farmer when I was a boy, and he had a saying: the best fertilizer is the grower's shadow.

Sometimes people ask if our plants are grown "organically." I don't want to get into a fight about that, so I'll just say that the company tried it as an experiment, but it was too chancy. There simply are no "organic" sprays effective enough for greenhouse work.

Three years ago there was an epidemic of late blight in potatoes and tomatoes, and a lot of people blamed us. It was the old story: the big bad box stores in cahoots with the big bad plant nursery to poison plants. We here in Utica had to throw out two or three million dollars worth of plants last year. Actually it started on an "organic" farm on Long Island.

By July our work is done. We clean out the greenhouses, get them ready for next year, and I head home for Alabama and lots of hunting and fishing. I don't have to worry about plants again til the turn of the year. *

Jigs Gardner

Jigs Gardner is an Associate Editor of the St. Croix Review. Jigs Gardner writes on literature from the Adirondacks, where he may be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

But what of our accounts, those earnest calculations brought forward in every Simple Living book?

Debits:

Rent $270.00

Cow $100.00

Doctor $20.00

Vet $15.00

Animal Feed $150.00

Groceries $590.00

Postage $270.00

Tobacco $75.00

$1,490.00

Credits:

On Hand $300.00

Tutoring $130.00

Jam Sales $60.00

Bootlegging $300.00

Gifts $180.00

Cow Sale $96.00

$1066.00

So at the end of two years, we owed about four hundred dollars, borrowed from two friends.

The usual narratives naturally stress the debit details to demonstrate how cheap the Simple Life can be, and of course, how principled they are. It's a bit like bragging about how little you paid for something, only in this case you're showing off moral ascendancy. To analyze contemporary books in the genre, a drug on the market from the '60s through the '80s, would be misguided zeal; they are too obvious and essentially trivial. I think it will be much more illuminating to turn to what is thought of as the original Simple Living book, Walden, by Henry Thoreau. I should say at once, however, that far from wishing that his readers would throw up occupations to go live in a cabin in the woods, he preached the Simple Life as a strategy, as a way of freeing oneself from the tyranny of getting and spending so that they might throw off conformity and conventionality to become more fully human, authentic selves. Understand that I am not his advocate; I think his ideas have some merit, but not much: the basic flaw in Transcendentalism is the thinness, the shallowness of its conception of the human condition.

Back to the accounts in "Economy," chapter one in Walden. I don't question his details. If he says he spent $8.031/2 on boards, I believe him; he's not deliberately hiding anything. And yet, there is a profound, subtle self-deception at the heart of his figures. When he says, "Nothing was given me of which I have not rendered some account," phrasing reminiscent of the ancient idea of submitting the record of one's life for judgment, there is a hint of pride, of haughtiness in the words which should make us pause: Could there be something missing, could the accounts be incomplete, could Thoreau be deceiving himself? To find the answer we must look at the "Baker Farm" chapter in which Thoreau tries to convert the Irish laborer, John Field, to the Simple Life, at one point telling him that he, too, works for a living, going on to compare his style of life favorably with the squalor of Field's cabin and the futility of his work "bogging" for a farmer. It does not occur to his sophisticated mind that he was able to choose his mode of life because he is privileged. His father owned a good business and Thoreau was highly educated. In order for a man to choose a materially spare life, he must have the resources behind him which will allow him to make a choice; he has to be so far from want that he can contemplate surrendering some of his comforts with equanimity, and he has to be educated enough to appreciate the appeal of simplicity. Complexity always precedes simplicity. John Field's situation and his inability to choose the Simple Life were not, as Thoreau thought, due to the fact that he was an ignorant Irish clod, but Thoreau could not comprehend their different situations because he was severely limited by a lack of sympathy with his fellows. That's why he appears at his worst - snide and condescending - in this passage. It cannot be an accident that this constellation of narrow, petty characteristics is common to so many Simple Living narratives. It is the greatest irony of Walden that Thoreau advocates a life of poverty as a means towards the appreciation of the finer aspects of life, when he proves in his own person that knowledge, sensitivity, full development of our faculties, all culture, in fact, depend on wealth created and recreated over generations.

So the accounts, even when accurate, are trivial and irrelevant, misleading and meaningless. I know that my accounts are true, but I also know that the most significant costs - our parents' educations, our own schooling, the constant efforts by parents and teachers to make us civilized citizens - those expenses that enabled us to live the life we did on the hill, are not in the bill.

There are credits, too, that are not in the accounts. I was forced to provide for my family directly by my own efforts, with no way of escape. I could not shirk my responsibilities, could not evade them by any formula of words or appeal to outside help. The wood had to be cut, the cow had to be milked, the water had to be hauled. I had to learn how to do those tasks and do them well, which meant learning and living by the rules of the natural world, obdurate and unforgiving. Practical realism, lessons in honesty. By an effort of will I taught myself the skills of survival, and in that dogged struggle I learned much about myself and tried to overcome my inadequacies. People do this every day in all sorts of situations, but I, whether out of weakness of character or a romantic imagination, had to undergo a trial by stark simplicity in which all surface complexities are stripped away and the confrontation is elemental.

There was so much that we learned, all that basic practical knowledge about living self-reliantly in a sparse rural situation, a great gain for all of us, self-reliance being a virtue under any circumstances. It certainly was good for our children, then, and later. They worked with us, in roles appropriate to their strength and understanding, in everything we did; they worked in the gardens, helped make and haul hay, carried in firewood, gathered sap, did stable chores, and of course, looked after themselves.

There was a metaphysical lesson, too. When visitors gushed about the beauties of our life I would sometimes recount the hardships, like the frozen water line, and then they would shake heir heads and admit it had its "bad side," No, no, I would say, you don't understand; it isn't good or bad, beautiful or squalid, it just is. They looked at me uncomprehendingly. What I was trying to say was that the directness and amplitude of our interactions with the natural world precluded judgment. We might respond with annoyance to a problem or with pleasure to a success but that was superficial - profoundly we were alive to the being, the "isness" of our life.

One other credit. That life helped us to become students. What passed for intellectual life at Tweedy was such a complacent sham that it was apparent to me even while I was there, but it took the parsimonious life on the hill, with its absence of distractions and surface complexities, with its long silences, with its tasks that forced me to think carefully and thoroughly, tasks that would show me, often in humiliating ways, the consequences of my thoughts in their destined acts, it was that life that cast an unsparing light on my past, showing that Tweedy, far from falling short in its mission of fostering the life of the mind, was actively subverting it, was in fact a bastion of anti-intellectualism - and I had been a part of it. If I remembered the pompous philistinism of the faculty with hilarity (once I fell off the milking stool, recalling a department meeting), I was not so amused at the memory of my own smug ignorance. Now we became systematic readers, and I began to write. This does not mean that I was less stupid or naive; intellectuality is not a synonym for intelligence.

So I took a teaching job (that's where I kept the cow in our garage), but I quit after a year and we went back to northern Vermont to run a tutoring school for teenaged boys who had trouble reading and writing. We rented a farm where we kept a couple of cows, a horse, pigs, chickens, and thus we fed everyone. The students worked with us on the farm and in the domestic economy of the house, so they were trained in practical self-reliance as well as academic subjects. We did not earn much money, but the way we lived enabled us to save enough to buy a farm where land was cheap, on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, where we lived for thirty years until 2001, doing all the work with horses. The farm was the basis of our economy, but we also earned money from writing and from lectures Jo Ann gave in the U.S. after she began writing gardening books in the 1980s. Although we learned more about farming in Canada than we had in Vermont, because we were doing more and the conditions were very difficult, the lessons we had learned on the hill were the basis for everything we accomplished.

Because we lived as we did, hippie homesteaders in Vermont, and later Cape Breton, thought we were experts on the Simple Life (much as, I suppose, Corbin's disciples did) and they flocked to our door, but they soon saw that we were hopelessly ignorant: why did Jo Ann bake white bread? And use white sugar? Didn't we have a loom? Where were the goats? We were a great disappointment to them, and they went away muttering. Without intending to, we have puzzled many people over the years, and interestingly, it is the unsophisticated rustics who have expressed their puzzlement, sometimes in this curious form: standing in our kitchen door, purchases in hand (perhaps a slab of bacon, eggs, butter, etc.), a rough countryman looks around and sees a wood range and a gas stove, a hand pump at the sink, a chainsaw on the porch, and he knows we do not own a motor vehicle and we do everything with horses, and he wonders about our odd life.

Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?

(Groans inwardly) No, of course not. Go right ahead.

(Very earnestly) Do you believe in the TV?

Of course, it's a funny question, but there's a serious meaning in it that I avoided at the time by saying we never had one. Now I mean to decipher the meaning and answer it properly. In the questioner's mind TV was obviously the promoter of what even a rustic could see were the most blatantly dubious aspects of modern life, and by that symbol he was asking if our life were a deliberate rejection of modernity. Was there a reason for what we did, a set of principles, a religion perhaps? Although our lack of means constrained our choices, the only rule we have ever followed is to please ourselves. For instance, we liked working horses, so that's what we did. We never did anything "on principle." We never tried to live the Simple Life, we never thought we were showing the way to anyone. We certainly did nothing for the sake of conformity. Perhaps that's why we disappointed people; we confounded their expectations (inevitably clichs).

I had been fascinated as a boy, even into my teens, by the notion of living in a cabin in the woods just as Jo Ann had loved attending an old-fashioned Spartan camp in the Maine woods, so the ease, not to say blitheness, with which we took the move to northern Vermont is more or less explicable, if you add innocence, naivet, ignorance, and romanticism, but what were the springs of my determination to see it through to the end, to plumb its depths, to find out what it meant and explain it to myself? Curiosity had something to do with it, in the same way that lanes, woods roads, and chance forest openings have always been temptations to me, as if I had an obligation to explore them, to see where they end. And there was pleasure, of course, great sensuous enjoyment of every aspect, rough or smooth of the life, as is apparent in the descriptions throughout this book. But above all, more than anything else, our lives, the lives of Jo Ann and the children and me, were driven by my stubborn, imprudent determination, and the only light I can shed on that is contained in this story: my mother wished on the first star she saw every evening, on white horses, on wish bones and four-leaf clovers (she could find one anywhere), on three black crows, and on many other things I can't recall, and she had a penchant for a certain kind of fortune teller. Not professionals, not the kind wearing bandannas at fairs, or the ones you had to make appointments to see, like getting your hair done. No, what Mother sought and always found were amateurs, old ladies who seemed to lead quite ordinary lives, but who had the second sight, who had been born with a caul, whose fathers were the seventh sons of seventh sons. Then, sharing a pint of something would enhance the proceedings, the reading of the palm or the tea leaves, or whatever was going forward in those back kitchens in the old houses with high ceilings where the aging ladies would laugh and tell stories, ladies I was reminded of years later when I read the Yeats poem, "John Kinsella's Lament"

And O! But she had stories

Though not for the priest's ear

To keep the soul of man alive,

Banish age and care,

And being old she put a skin

On everything she said.

One humorous old lady I remember - she said her face looked like a "bag of tripe," it was so wrinkled - who lived up three flights of outside stairs in what had once been a rather grand house in Trenton, was a regular crony of my mother's, and one evening when I was twelve or thirteen, she was in deep discourse with Mother at the kitchen table, while I sat to the side, doing my math homework for the next day. I paid no mind to them or their conversation, but the old lady was watching me, and when we were leaving she said to me, "The fairies put something in your cradle." I stared. "Yes, the fairies gave you a rare gift. Do you want to know what it is?"

'Yes, ma'am," I said, because I had been taught to be polite.

The fairies gave you the gift of believing in yourself, and you'll always have it til the day you die, through thick or thin. You'll always believe that no matter what you do, everything will come right in the end.

"What a nice gift!" Mother exclaimed, all smiles.

But the old lady, after all, had the second sight. "Ah," she shrugged, "That's as may be, that's as may be." *

Thomas Martin

Thomas Martin is the O.K. Bouwsma Chair in Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Along with his fellow colleagues who are dedicated to the study of the Great Books, he teaches the works of Plato, Aristotle, G. K. Chesterton, Dostoyevsky, and Solzhenitsyn, to mention a few.

The latest saga of the sexual revolution, of man's right to expresses his sexuality with whomever he pleases, is hot off the press. The BBC recently reports, "Animal Welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality," and how the German parliament's agriculture committee is considering making it an offense not only to hurt an animal, but also to force it into unnatural sex.

Germany legalized bestiality (zoophilia) in 1969, except when the animal suffered "significant harm."

There is no mention of humans suffering "significant harm" when coupling with animals.

An animal rights group in Germany, the equivalent of P.E.T.A. in the United States, has campaigned for a change in the law. It is advocating legislation banning Zoophilia, fining its practitioners 25,000 Euros, if someone forces an animal to commit "actions alien to the species."

In response to the animal rights group protestations, Michael Kiok, the chairman of Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information [ZETA], said:

It is unthinkable that any sexual act with an animal is punished without proof that the animal has come to any harm . . . animals are capable of showing what they do, or do not, want to do.

Kiok further argues:

We see animals as partners and not as means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women.

The final vote on the bill will be in the Budestag, the lower house of the parliament, on the 14th of December.

We are living in a relativistic age where the prevailing philosophy is that when it comes to morality there are no absolute truths. No longer is marriage, for example, recognized as a sacred union, instituted by God, uniting two souls into one as the sanctified place for sexual union. Now, whatever a person values is valuable because he chooses to value it. This philosophy plays itself out in man's sexual relationships.

Relativists do not recognize any absolute truth and argue that marriage, for example, is a matter of individual choice and matrimony between two consenting people is their choice. Furthermore, what takes place in the privacy of the bedroom between two consenting people is a personal preference.

So, while Zoophilia is seen by its detractors to be bestiality, the zoophiles are right to argue that this is simply hate speech. No one has the right to impose his values, his notion of morality - all things being equal - on them.

To argue, for example, that zoophiles are forcing an animal to commit "actions alien to the species" assumes that there is a prohibition in nature - an absolute! - governing sexual relations between the species.

Mr. Kiok may well argue that a male donkey and a female horse are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes, and there is no natural prohibition forbidding their mating. Mules attest to this.

Therefore, Mr. Kiok notes, "animals are capable of showing what they do, or do not, want to do."

Mr. Kiok has the consent - tacit though it may be - for his sexual relationships with animals. A man has the tacit consent of horses when he mounts them for a ride. Everyone can see that the horse does not mind.

There is no such thing as an unnatural sexual act for the relativist.

Whatever goes on between a man and his pig in a farrowing house stays in the farrowing house.

The next logical step for ZETA and its practitioners, and perhaps Americans as we ape progressive Europeans and are liberated from traditional values, will be to recognize intermarriage between the species.

While human mixed-species relationships will not produce offspring, like a male donkey and a female horse producing a mule, adoption will be the option for these newly defined families. All their dependents will surely qualify as income tax deductions.

And so it goes when man descends to the nature of animals or becomes one with them. *

Murray Weidenbaum?

Murray Weidenbaum holds the Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professorship at Washington University in St. Louis, where he is also honorary chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy.

One of the great public policy challenges facing the United States is to reconcile the requirements of the national security with the desire to achieve a prosperous and growing economy. That is a tall order. It helps to think in terms of two personalities, Washington's oddest couple: an economist talking to a senior military officer. The mutual suspicion is awesome. (I served on a commission with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.) Every admiral and general looks at an economist as someone with little knowledge of military needs and values, but anxious to put a dollar sign on everything. The economist is not much better. He sees the military leader, no matter how brave in battle, as oblivious to the realities of limited resources - and often offended by the mere mention of cost.

History shows us that the battle of the budget never ends. That is because of the ever-changing technological and political environment. There are at least two sides of the argument. On one side are people concerned about threats to national security. Inevitably, they advocate devoting more of our wealth to the military and cite the military spending by potential adversaries as also an important factor. That is also called "an arms race."

Sometimes an increase in our defense spending may generate a new round of rising military outlays by other nations and also rising tensions. It can get very complicated. Remember when the U.S. faced down the Soviets in Cuba (you read about it). The Kennedy Administration took it as a great victory - and leveled off U.S. defense spending.

The Soviets reacted very differently. They began a major expansion in their military programs - so that they would never be "pushed around" again. Years later, in response, the U.S. accelerated its defense budget.

Many other citizens worry that the economy cannot support the current level of defense. They see civilian priorities as more urgent. They have visions of sick senior citizens, poor farmers, struggling middle class families, and a deteriorating environment. They believe that substantial cutbacks in the military budget should be made.

How can we achieve high middle ground on these vital matters? We hear and read about the billions - and now trillions of dollars - that government spends each year. Inevitably, not all the money is spent wisely. Not every project generates the benefits anticipated. Surely, the pork barrel has military as well as civilian compartments.

What is the basic justification for a high military budget? "We live in a dangerous world," is the response of the first group of citizens. Surely, many people wish us ill. Some of them take actions to achieve that objective. But, sometimes we take the initiative, as in Iraq. Would we have done that if the military budget were much smaller? That is a good question without an easy answer.

A few statistics may help us get going. The U.S. economy now produces $15 trillion dollars of goods and services a year (GDP). About 5 percent of that is devoted to the national security. That is neither trivial nor overwhelming, yet it is significant.

Historical comparisons put those numbers into proper context. In absolute terms, the military budget has been on an upward trajectory since the Korean War. But when we look at priorities (proportions of the economy and budget or who gets what?) that yields a very different picture.

During the Cold War, the United States devoted far larger shares of our resources to defense than we do now. In the 1960s, that ratio averaged 9 percent of GDP. In the 1970s, it was 6 percent. In the 1980s - the time of the massive Reagan buildup -the ratio went all the way to 7 percent. The downward trend resumed in the 1990s with 5 percent. In the first decade of the 21st century, it averaged a bit over 4 percent. It is about 5-1/2 percent today. Thus, since the end of World War II, the trend of military outlays, in relation to the national economy, has been downward.

We have had short-term peaks in military spending for Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and for the current conflicts in the Middle East. But - a fundamental but - each of those peaks was lower than the preceding peak. As a result, over the past 66 years the U.S. has become an increasingly more civilian-oriented economy. We no longer read books about "The Garrison State."

The declining share of national resources allocated to defense extends far beyond the macro economy. The basic building blocks of our defense industrial base have not kept pace with the expansion of the civilian society. Specifically, we have devoted steadily smaller shares of our labor force, capital formation, and R&D to defense. The U.S. is marching to the beat of civilian drummers.

Is that good or bad? You - the public - decide. Technically, we can afford today's military budget. And we can afford to spend reasonably more this year and next. Many independent studies conclude that we can - not that we should - afford to spend more on defense, much more if we truly need to do so. But there is another side to that coin. We do not need to finance a high level of military spending in order to achieve economic prosperity.

After a reasonable period of adjustment, the economy would be stronger with a lower level of military outlays. That's not just theory. That happened after the end of the Cold War! The United States experienced simultaneously higher growth, higher productivity, and lower inflation.

In any event, we should not give the Pentagon, or any other department of the government, a blank check on the Treasury. The battle of the budget fundamentally is not a green eyeshade matter at all. The heart of federal budgeting is choosing among important national priorities.

The truly effective limit on the military budget is not economic. It is essentially political, in the true sense of the word, that is - the judgment of the people. Thus, the real limit on expenditures for the national security is not the amount of our national wealth. It is the willingness of the society to spend more to produce military goods and services.

How can we account for the downward trend in the military's share of the federal budget? The answer involves some important but boring budgetary mechanics. Most of the funds appropriated each year are not reviewed by the appropriations committees. Even more important, most of that money does not appear in the annual appropriations bills passed by Congress. That is not an oversight.

This situation prevails because the most expensive programs - social security, Medicare, and interest on the public debt - are financed very differently from the rest of the government. They are funded by "permanent indefinite appropriations." That requires some explanation.

Many years ago, Congress passed a law that said the Treasury shall have continuing authority to disburse all the money required to pay the interest on the outstanding Treasury debt. That permanent law will remain on the statute books until or unless it is repealed, which is most unlikely. "Indefinite" signifies that there is no limit on how much the Treasury can spend to cover the required interest payments. Similar statutes were passed years ago to cover Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The result is that the military request for funds is by far the largest part of the budget that is subject to congressional control through the annual appropriations process. That makes military spending especially vulnerable to pressures to reduce the deficit.

The result of this technical fiscal arrangement is that the "entitlements" (especially Social Security and Medicare), receive a rapidly rising portion of the budget automatically. Simultaneously, there is a sharp long-term downward trend in the share of the federal budget devoted to national defense. A few numbers will bring the situation into focus. In the 1960s, 47 percent of federal spending went to defense. During the first decade of the 21st century, that ratio was down to 19 percent.

Looking ahead, the actuarial reports on Social Security and Medicare show rising expenditure trends over the next several decades. Expected increases in interest rates and size of the public debt mean that outlays for interest payments on the national debt also will accelerate. The squeeze on the military budget thus is likely to continue for years to come.

Some complications need to be considered. The real or fundamental costs of maintaining a large military establishment are not financial. The real costs are the men and women pulled away from civilian pursuits. Some may not return from battle, or are badly wounded.

The real costs also include the technology diverted to military ends, the many barrels of oil pumped from the earth, and the many metals and minerals used in producing weapons and related military equipment. In short, the human and national resources and the stock of capital devoted to the national security can be used in civilian activities. The other side of the coin is, of course, the enhanced national security. To cite the obvious - that is often overlooked - during the long Cold War, the Soviet Union - our major military competitor - never attempted a direct attack on the U.S. That's the benefit side.

There are several key points of economic substance that flow from analyzing the data. The prosperity of the nation does not require any particular level of military activity. In fact, our productivity and competitiveness will suffer if defense spending is used to prop up the prosperity of any region or industry. What happens when an unneeded military base is closed and turned to civilian uses? Good studies provide an answer. After a reasonable adjustment period, employment at that facility usually is higher than ever.

Let us turn to a related point. Government can encourage a stronger national economy by other means than spending on military programs. That includes investing in education, research and development, and more efficient transportation. Also, it can reduce tax and regulatory obstacles that inhibit the flow of private investment and innovation. These actions will simultaneously help strengthen the defense industrial base. That is the ability to design and produce weapon systems and other needed military equipment. Those resources are almost entirely in the private sector. That is an example of how to reconcile military and economic factors in a positive way.

Another key point is that there is no fixed share of the nation's economy and budget to which the military sector is entitled. The fundamental challenge facing the national security establishment is to try to convince the American people that a given spending level is justified in the combined light of two basic factors: the continuing threats to the national security, and the priorities of the civilian sectors of the government and of the economy generally. Yes, it is a difficult balancing act.

We should recognize that, however large the military budget seems to be in dollar terms, it really is using a minor part of the nation's resources. Our massive economy is not propelled by modest shifts in the relatively small share devoted to the military. Nevertheless, economic and security factors are closely related.

I do not claim to foresee the likely strategy nor the needed force structure required for our security in the years ahead. Surely, the nation needs a strong and resilient corps of dedicated officers and enlistees trained to meet a variety of contingencies. We also need a strong and diversified high-tech design and production capability - that's the defense industry - to respond effectively to ever-changing national security requirements in an uncertain world.

The dangerous world we live in also requires us to rethink the tendency to reduce the portions of our resources devoted to national defense. That downward trend should not be an objective, but it can be a result of serious nonpartisan analysis.

I give the last word to Adam Smith, the wily Scot who founded economics. This quote is from his classic book, The Wealth of Nations:

The first duty of the sovereign is defending the society from the violence and injustice of other independent societies. It grows gradually more and more expensive, as the society advances in civilization.

Why? Basically, because economic progress means that there is more wealth to defend. Also, advancing technology provides more opportunity and need to spend more money for national defense. *

M. Lester O'Shea

M. Lester O'Shea is a former chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party, and the author of two books, Tampering with the Machinery (McGraw-Hill), and A Cure Worse Than the Disease (McGraw-Hill).

While elections for Congress and for state offices are important, nothing is more crucial to the future of the United States than who occupies the White House, not primarily because of the president's executive authority but because of his key role in the selection of America's ultimate authority, which can override anything done by the rest of government, federal, state, or local.

This ultimate authority is known as the United States Supreme Court, but so expansive have its powers become that the term "supreme junta" might be more accurate.

This body of nine was not the ultimate authority, its decisions permeating every facet of American life, until relatively recently. Sweeping changes decreed by the federal judiciary on the basis of new interpretations of provisions in the Constitution in place for over a hundred years that no one had ever interpreted as having such meaning would have been unthinkable.

Thus the 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, was enacted through the cumbersome constitutionally-prescribed process of amendment, because it had crossed no one's mind then that distinctions in law based on sex violated the 14th Amendment's provision for "equal protection of the laws."

Today, of course, it is seriously argued by ostensibly rational people with legal training that courts should hold that sex distinctions, such that Jim may marry Mary, but Sally may not, violate the Equal Protection Clause, and some courts have actually done so. If such an imaginative interpretation of the 1868 Amendment had been acceptable in 1920, women's suffrage could have been created overnight by a court decision.

But in 1920 such a decision would have been completely beyond the bounds of respectability and acceptability. By the 1950s, however, there was more acceptance of an aggressively expanded judicial role, as the intellectual and academic worlds had become more leftist and liberals had learned to look to the courts to promote egalitarianism. Beginning with the "Warren Court," the court embarked successfully ("Impeach Earl Warren" efforts got nowhere) on a far-reaching program of reordering American life.

Initial efforts, striking down governmentally mandated racial segregation in particular, had constitutional justification. But, emboldened by success and with a reliable cheering section in the academic world, in the law schools in particular, and in the intellectual community and the media generally, the Court transformed matters in one area after another, eliminating laws restricting abortion, ordering school busing, making welfare a "property right," hamstringing and for a while totally banning capital punishment, invalidating vagrancy laws and the poll tax, providing criminal suspects and defendants with extensive new rights, and throwing other roadblocks in the way of law enforcement, eliminating the common practice of basing one house of a state legislature on geography rather than population (as in the case of the United States Senate) , extending speech and other rights to schoolchildren, forbidding prayer at school events, allowing public universities to engage in racial discrimination against whites and Asians, and concocting the absurd concept of "disparate impact" to construe the 1964 Civil Rights Act as forbidding consistently applied standards in employment.

What the Court was doing was not acting as a court at all but rather imposing its members' personal views of what constituted enlightened policy on the country, merely going through the motions of legal analysis. Judges convinced of their enlightenment and moral superiority can be absolutely shameless in what they do. Judge Bork is said to have commented that when he reached the highest levels of the judiciary he felt somewhat like an astronomer who reached the heights of his profession only to discover that what was actually being practiced there was not astronomy but astrology.

The constitutions of a number of states provide for direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives, but the Supreme Court can invalidate their results, as in the case of Colorado's Proposal 2, which amended the state constitution by providing that no government entities in the state could enact ordinances forbidding discrimination against homosexuals. The tool, in Romer v. Evans, 1996, was the ever-handy Equal Protection Clause. But, as Justice Scalia said in his dissent:

The central thesis of the Court's reasoning is that any group is denied equal protection when, to obtain advantage . . . it must have recourse to a more general and hence more difficult level of political decision making than others. The world has never heard of such a principle.

Again:

The only denial of equal treatment [the Court's opinion] contends homosexuals have suffered is this: They may not obtain preferential treatment without amending the state constitution. That is to say . . . one who is accorded equal treatment under the laws, but cannot as readily as others obtain preferential treatment under the laws, has been denied equal protection of the laws. If merely stating this alleged "equal protection" violation does not suffice to refute it, our constitutional jurisprudence has achieved terminal silliness.

Along that line, in 2012 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 8-7 en banc vote, held that Michigan's state constitutional amendment forbidding race and sex discrimination by state entities, adopted by a 58 percent to 42 percent margin in 2006, violated the Equal Protection Clause. All the judges in the majority had been nominated by Carter, Clinton, or Obama.

The present Supreme Court is much sounder than the courts that accomplished most of the overturning of the established order of things summarized above, and there is probably a 5-4 majority in favor of most sensible positions. The majority is a shaky one. Chief Justice Roberts went bad in the Obamacare decision, and Justice Kennedy's logic tends to get shaky when homosexuals or murderers are involved. Still, there are generally enough votes to produce decisions consistent with the meaning of the Constitution and the laws.

But all it would take would be the replacement of one of the conservative justices with a fervent leveler and all bets would be off: for there is really nothing that someone who would pronounce insertion of anti-discrimination provisions in a state constitution violative of the Equal Protection Clause is not capable of.

Consider the "disparate impact" absurdity - that reasonable standards, consistently applied in a color-blind manner, are presumed invalid if a disproportionate number of one racial group (as a practical matter this means blacks and Hispanics) fail to meet them. This was enacted into law in the 1991 Civil Rights Act (which President Bush first said he would not sign because it was a "quota bill" and then signed into law anyway), dealing only with employment.

No court has ever concluded that "disparate impact" applied anywhere except in the employment context. But that has not stopped federal officials from attempting to intimidate entities in other areas, from education to banking, suggesting that practices that do not produce equal success rates by race and sex may be illegal and get them in trouble with the government. The Department of Education has warned universities along that line. The Holder Justice Department apparently succeeded in getting the city of St. Paul to abandon a lawsuit in which the city was contending that "disparate impact" was not applicable, for fear that the correctness of that position would be confirmed if the suit went to the present Supreme Court. It also has succeeded in extracting hundreds of millions from banks based on the argument that their lending practices, without any evidence of racial discrimination, nevertheless were objectionable based on "disparate impact." Federally regulated banks do not want trouble with the feds and prefer settling to litigating. With the Supreme Court's balance tilted, one could count on the application of "disparate impact" across the board.

Also quite likely would be a complete ban on the death penalty; further expansion of criminal defendants' rights; not only the invalidation of repeals of race and sex preferences but very possibly their being made mandatory to prevent adverse disparate impact; the countenancing of sweeping increases in executive-branch powers; and nationwide "same-sex marriage," of course called "marriage equality." Public displays of religion, including the presence of chaplains in Congress and in the armed services, would likely face further curtailment. And a new case would overrule Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and require the Scouts to accept active homosexuals as members and Scoutmasters.

And those are just issues that have already come before the courts. Who can tell what striking new insights into what the Constitution means a majority of fervent egalitarians would have? They might discover, for example, that state right-to-work laws either somehow violate the Equal Protection Clause or are precluded by the same freedom of contract invoked by the Court in the 1923 Adkins v. Children's Hospital case.

The only way to avoid a parade of horribles is to elect a president who will nominate for judicial vacancies people who will be real judges rather than social revolutionaries pretending to be judges: which, as a practical matter at this point, means a Republican. But how is this to be done?

The winning Reagan coalition had three parts. One consisted of those concerned about national security, anxious to stop, and optimistically to turn back, forces in the world hostile to America and its interests; primarily, at the time, Communism. ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") The second was those who wanted frugal, limited government ("Government is the problem, not the solution!"). The third was the social-issues conservatives, who wanted an orderly society governed by traditional religious and social values and principles and without government favoritism based on race or sex. Reagan's firmness, as California governor, in dealing with riotous leftist students at the University of California aroused tremendous enthusiasm.

Analysts have pointed out a number of tactical mistakes in the 2012 Romney campaign, from allowing his early portrayal, in a massive advertising campaign, as a money-hungry profiteer with blood on his hands to go unanswered, to failing to effectively reach voters prior to the election and to get out the vote on election day, to making unfortunate statements. Romney's bland personality and permanently fixed smile were not assets either.

But the fundamental problem was that Romney was a Johnny One Note, his campaign completely focused on economic and financial matters. Richard Viguerie called his a "content-free campaign." He had nothing to arouse enthusiasm in two out of the three parts of the Reagan coalition.

Complaining about the economy is an iffy strategy, particularly if you are not articulate enough to convincingly tie its disappointing performance to specific failings of the incumbent (as Romney completely missed a great opportunity to do at the start of the third debate). Simply not being the incumbent, by itself, is not enough. Things were pretty bad in 1936, but voters did not blame Franklin Roosevelt; they still were blaming Herbert Hoover for the depression that had begun during his administration, and Alf Landon got only 8 electoral votes, carrying only Maine and Vermont. The current recession had set in well before the 2008 election (helping to doom McCain), and exit polls in 2012 showed voters blaming George W. Bush more than Obama for the sluggish economy.

Also, economies tend to be resilient enough to right themselves fairly quickly, deflating the issue.

Apart from complaining about the economy, the Romney campaign focused on the second of the three parts of the Reagan coalition: the believers in limited, economical government, the Taxed Enough Already voters. These solid, self-supporting citizens indeed are against expensive and intrusive government and want to keep their hard-earned dollars rather than lose them to boondoggles and wealth redistribution. Unfortunately they are largely offset by those who like the idea of a big and well-funded and generous government because they look to it rather than a booming private economy to put money in their pockets.

Certainly Republicans need to emphasize to those who are paying the bills how they are being taken advantage of for the benefit of the Democrats' favored constituencies. Democrats must not be allowed to get away with buying votes while those who are paying for the purchase fail to notice what is going on. Even 47 percent leaves 53 percent on the other side.

But generalized talk about excessive government spending strikes relatively few sparks; specific outrages need to be publicized: for example, that the Head Start program, costing $8 billion a year and a total of $180 billion since it began, has once again been shown by a study to have no lasting benefit to the children involved at all. Of course, it moves billions of taxpayer money through those in the industry, but, as with "green energy" projects, and so many of jobs in the old Soviet Union, without producing anything of value.

But to win - and for their victory to be really meaningful in terms of what Americans believe in - Republicans need to get beyond dollars and cents and fiscal and monetary policy and appeal to voters on the basis of ideology and principle. The idea that if 47 percent of the population are receiving some form of government benefit they are necessarily lost to the Republican candidate reflects an appallingly shallow view of the voters: that is, that all they care about is what is in it for them financially.

Does not the old saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," recognize the power of lofty ideals to sway people? Was not the theme of the book What's the Matter with Kansas? show consistently Kansans voted against their own financial interests?

Can one imagine Abraham Lincoln saying, "Studies show that 47 percent of the voters are in some way benefitting financially from the institution of slavery, so I cannot hope for their votes"? Were the Abolitionists, or the volunteers who went to the South in the 1960s to support Negro voting rights, inspired by the prospect of financial gain? Did Patrick Henry say, "Give me reduced taxes or give me death"?

As to the relative strengths of a fairness issue and the generic Republican economy-focused campaign, consider the 2006 election in Michigan. The state economy was feeble and unemployment high, reflecting poorly on the incumbent governor, Jennifer Granholm. The Republican candidate for governor was Dick DeVos, a successful businessman, who was in a position to, and did, fund his campaign with $35 million of his own money. Mr. DeVos focused his campaign entirely on the economy (and at one point - plus ca change! - was accused of outsourcing jobs to China).

At the same election, there was an initiative on the ballot, Proposal 2, which proposed to prohibit the State of Michigan and its entities, including universities and cities, from practicing race and sex discrimination: that is, the "affirmative action" that favors women, Negroes, and certain other racial minorities. To much of the Michigan establishment, including major corporations, the unions, the academic world, the newspapers, and the churches, the idea of interfering with government discrimination against whites, Asians, and males was abhorrent, and DeVos joined his Democratic opponent in supporting the well-funded campaign against Proposal 2.

DeVos lost to Granholm, 56 percent to 42 percent, while Prop. 2 passed in a landslide, 58 percent to 42 percent.

Opposition to labor union excesses, particularly in public employment, is another issue where Republicans have the popular wind at their backs, as demonstrated by recent decisive setbacks for unions in Wisconsin and Michigan (in the latter case including passage of a right-to-work law after the Nov. 2012 defeat of a union effort to write union rights into the state constitution), both states handily carried by Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

Probably in most states, including the "swing states," there is a majority opposed to changing the definition of marriage to make persons of the same sex eligible for it. In Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington, the four liberal states where in November 2012 voters approved "marriage equality" (after the proponents outspent the opponents by something like a 4-to-1 margin), opposition to it received more votes than Romney; in Maryland 48 percent vs. Romney's 36 percent.

Other non-economic issues that come to mind where the conservative point of view represents the majority point of view include lawsuit abuse (there is a reason the plaintiffs' bar is one of the largest financial supporters of the Democratic Party), the runaway welfare and disability system (recall Reagan's denunciation of "welfare queens"), gun control (meaning making the possession of guns by law-abiding people more difficult), immigration, environmental extremism including climate alarmism, abortion, and capital punishment.

All of these represent opportunities for Republicans to energize their voters in a presidential election.

Avoiding issues that can generate enthusiasm and votes for you lest you antagonize people who would never vote for you in the first place is not good politics. There are many Americans, a majority in many places in addition to Arizona, who find the present out-of-control immigration situation intolerable. A recent Pew poll in fact showed a national majority having the view that illegal immigrants should return to their countries of origin. Those with that view are very likely a majority of those who vote in Republican primaries. Mitt Romney made a nod in their direction by referring approvingly to "self-deportation," but then ignored the issue in the general election campaign, while Democrats used his "self-deportation" comment against him among Hispanic voters.

Not that that made much difference in the Hispanic vote; it is hard to see how anyone could seriously believe that there were a significant number of Hispanics ready to vote for Romney who were dissuaded by his not being sufficiently welcoming to illegal immigrants. While economic self-interest is not everything, it can be expected to prevail if not trumped by ideals or emotion; so the idea of a Republican's garnering a large percentage of the Hispanic vote is as much a will-o'-the-wisp as that of getting a large share of the black vote. Both groups are disproportionately lower-income and thus, disproportionately, naturally attracted to the generous Democrats. (Make 11 million predominantly low-skilled illegal immigrants citizens with the vote and count on at least 6 million more Democratic votes.)

Not only that, Democrats enthusiastically support providing them with preferential treatment. And the Republicans couldn't outbid the Democrats with affirmative action and open borders if they tried (necessarily throwing their principles out the window in the process), because they wouldn't be trusted. They would also be throwing away two issues potentially powerful with other Americans.

Making an issue of something even if only a minority agree with you on it is good politics if it gains you votes among them while those on the other side would never have voted for you anyway.

Barring presently unforeseen developments, victory will have to be based on domestic issues, since there are no foreign issues in sight analogous to those that activated the first part of the Reagan coalition.

Republicans generally made no secret of their antipathy toward Communism and conviction that its expansionist efforts should be resolutely opposed. Democrats, on the other hand, were accused, to a large extent correctly, as being "soft on Communism." They were to some extent influenced by actual Communists among them, but more significant was the fact that leftists couldn't help having a certain amount of sympathy for a system that had substantially abolished private property and private profit and made people equal - although, as in Churchill's saying, "equality in misery" as opposed to "inequality in prosperity." Leading Democrats saw good things in the Soviet system, an example being John Galbraith's statement, a few years before Communism's collapse, that the Soviet system worked because, unlike ours, it made full use of its manpower. He meant that there was no unemployment because everyone had a job doing something. (His comment was inexcusable in an economist, because without free markets and profits there was no assurance that what people were doing produced anything that actually met human needs and desires; much of the manpower was busy producing nothing of any value.) Liberals were horrified at Reagan's use of the term "evil empire."

Democrats were also much more likely than Republicans to believe that revolutionaries such as Mao Tse-Tung or Fidel Castro or those in El Salvador and Nicaragua were merely reformers seeking social justice rather than Communists.

At any rate, Communism's aggressiveness kept it very much in the news, and specifics as to what should be done about it made for Republican-Democratic issues, with those in favor of a robust approach to Communism tending to support Republican candidates.

The disappearance of Soviet Communism as a looming threat eliminated that issue. But what about the current principal international threat to American well-being, Islamic fanaticism? This is what caused 3,000 American deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, atrocities and perhaps another 7,000 in subsequent warfare of various types.

At first blush, one would think that it would be the liberal Democratic Party that would be attracting support by advocating a hard line against Moslem fanatics. After all, they systematically oppress girls and women; they condemn and kill homosexuals; they particularly hate Jews. The Moslems also enthusiastically employ capital punishment, as is clear from a January 21, 2013 New York Times article, "Iran Resorts To Hangings In Public To Cut Crime." Not only were these particular hangings, in a Teheran park, for robbery rather than murder (shades of 18th-century England!), according to the article, "every year hundreds of convicts are hanged in Iran."

But Islamic fanatics also hate Americans. This resonates, perhaps unconsciously, with the view so many liberals imbibed with their mothers' milk or from their professors' lectures, of America as a malign force in the world, chronically on the wrong side: in Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, etc. Hard feelings toward America's enemies do not come naturally to them. Furthermore, the Arabs are dark-skinned, and ingrained in American liberals since the days of the civil-rights crusade is a sense of "Black good; white bad." The antagonism toward Israel of leftists in the United States and Western Europe has less to do with the Israelis' being Jewish than with their being white.

So vigor toward Islamic fanaticism did not become a Democratic issue but, rather, a Republican one - but only briefly. Republicans, after initial and decisive military action, led the long and costly and inevitably futile efforts to create liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan - because of cultural and other characteristics of the populations. The resulting debacles not only discredited the idea of vigorously projecting American power in the world, but also made it impossible for Republicans to use confronting Islamic fanaticism as a Republican issue.

Once upon a time, forceful and direct action against fanatical Islam was feasible. When Gen. Gordon was killed in Khartoum by the forces of the Mahdi, Great Britain sent a punitive expedition up the Nile, destroyed the Mahdi's forces at the battle of Omdurman in 1898, and then took over, pacified, and governed what was called the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan for the better part of a century.

But this approach was feasible only because the British were ready to use force ruthlessly against insurgents; and they and the natives believed that they were there to stay. Everyone wants to be on the right side of those who are going to be around long-term rather than those who will soon be gone.

Americans had similar attitudes at that time. When Spain ceded the Philippines to us, we did not hold elections, but crushed Aguinaldo's independence-seeking rebels ruthlessly.

But that was then, and our view of other countries' right to self-government is altogether different. In addition, it is widely believed (by Republicans and Democrats alike) that all people are very much like Americans, or Swedes, or Swiss (Wrong!); that the despotic regimes standard in backward countries are just a matter of bad luck; and that with free elections, the people's inherent yearning for liberal democracy will produce happy, stable countries with individual liberties and the rule of law.

Realistically, the best that can be hoped for in the Arab world is tolerable governments that will minimize the harm that Islamic fanatics can do. But "Help relatively tolerable despots retain power to avoid something worse" is not a stirring slogan. And while all hard-headed commentary on the situation (e.g., Andrew C. McCarthy's) was on the Republican side, leading Republican politicians were perfectly happy with Obama's pulling the rug out from under Mubarak and overthrowing Gaddafi, so they could hardly even make an issue of the killing of four Americans in Benghazi as a result of our crusade for democracy in Libya.

So unless something unforeseen happens in the meantime, the 2016 election will have to be won on domestic issues. Washington's words to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair," are particularly relevant to Republicans, since their base consists largely of law-abiding, self-supporting and self-reliant citizens, while to a large extent the present Democratic Party is a coalition of those looking to government to give advantages, financial or otherwise, at others' expense. Republicans cannot outbid Democrats for those votes. They need to make it clear that they stand for sound policies that resonate with their base rather than be mute (or, worse, try to be more like their opponents) lest they offend those who will not vote for them anyway. *

Herbert London

Herbert London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, and author of the book The Transformational Decade (University Press of America).

If you watch T.V. programs, you know that to watch is to be a participant. Television has gone from being a passive medium to a reactive medium. Everyone is a judge, and judges are supposed to determine a winner. On "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars," you, the audience, must judge, "select your favorite." The selection may not be the best singer or dancer, but it is your choice. Entering the equation is the likeability factor. This could be related to appearance or charm or eccentricities - whatever turns you on or as they say on television, whatever floats your boat.

Now these judges are also voters. The loose and adjustable criteria for selecting an "Idol" are transmogrified into standards for selecting a president. The results are easy, almost casual prototypical assessments. Romney is stiff; Obama is cool. Romney is pointed; Obama is flexible. Romney is a dispassionate banker; Obama cares. Lost in this winner takes all game of judging are real stakes, even if the criteria are unrelated to performance.

For example, is the man who cares better prepared to preside over the country than someone who is calculating? Is appearance a standard for sound judgment? Whatever the answer, selections will be made as if the "Voice" were a national lottery.

Judges who sit in a courtroom are there to uphold the law about which they should know something, at least that is the presumption. In the case of television judgeship, everyone is an expert and one participates to select a winner. Its not as if Fred Astaire makes the ultimate call about "Dancing With the Stars." After the judges give their ratings, the public weighs in, sometimes agreeing with the experts, but not always.

Needless to say, it is assumed the public knows something about dance. This, of course, is silly. They may like certain dancers, but very few in the viewing audience - if any - can tell you what are the required steps in the Argentine Tango. Yet we act as if full participation is desirable.

A large turnout in a presidential election is invariably deemed a positive expression of democratic impulses. But what does it really show? How many of those voting know or care about the issues? How many apply the variable standards of performance from "Idol" to the presidential vote?

As I stood on line to vote in the recent election, several youthful voters said they were supporting Obama because he is "cool." Reluctant to pour ice water on this comment, I merely asked, "Why?" "Why," they noted, "because he knows how to reach us." I have long believed that narcissism accounts for many national ills; now I know it is also a factor in determining candidate appeal.

Since T.V. insists we act as judges, valid criteria for judgment are unnecessary. Just pick up the phone and identify your choice. Everyone plays and, who knows, maybe you'll pick the winner. Harvesting votes is an art form. "If you want us to return, please get on your phones now." Interactive television gives an audience power and belonging, even if these conditions are ephemeral.

Marshall McLuhan was right - the medium is the message - and that medium is judging. Since this judging on T.V. is anonymous, any reason for selection will do. In a sense, it is different from public choice in which the censure of opinion could chasten selectors. One need not worry when the telephone recording comes on.

What this means is that viewers are offered the illusion of great power without responsibility. Judgments can be made without knowledge. Everyone is a judge without robes. Is it any wonder that presidential elections have the feel and superficiality of "American Idol"?

Discriminating or non-discriminating voting is ultimately meaningless. This is pure, dumbed-down democracy in which everyone participates and everyone is a judge. *

Barry MacDonald - Editorial

Republicans are misunderstood by too many Americans. Why?

The education system has a bias towards the supposed benevolence of big government, and the news media is in sympathy with the ideology of big government. Republicans are distorted, as though our image were reflected in a fun-house mirror. But most importantly, Republicans aren't united, and they haven't defined for American voters their essential principles.

Also there is the devolution of political discourse from reasoned argument to 30-second attack ads on T.V. These ads have the power to shift the direction of public opinion; they rely on preconceived views and emotions, and so many of them are untruthful; as were the ads attacking Mitt Romney as a felon, and as responsible for the death of an employee's wife.

President Obama and generations of Democrats before him have mastered the art of crafting their messages for maximum effect through a sympathetic media.

During a campaign style, T.V. appearance in front of uniformed police officers, the President blamed the coming "sequestration cuts" in government spending on Republicans. The "cuts" are a tiny slowing of an ever-increasing level of spending: the federal government will spend more this year than last despite sequestration.

The President said:

Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce our deficits by more than $2.5 trillion. More than two-thirds of that was through some pretty tough spending cuts. . . . . [Not true. We've had four years of trillion-plus dollar deficits; there have been no "tough" spending cuts].

Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research . . . Emergency responders like the ones who are here today - their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings. . . . So these cuts are not smart. . . . They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls.

. . . So far at least the ideas that the Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations, so the burden is all on first responders or seniors or middle-class families. They double down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I've outlined. They slash Medicare and investments that create good, middle-class jobs. And so far at least what they've expressed is a preference where they'd rather have these cuts go into effect than close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans. Not one.

If I didn't know better, if I didn't recognized what an outrageous pile of untruths these words are, I would hate Republicans too: it's the President's objective to cast the Republicans as villains worthy of hate, and to prejudice the American people against even the smallest reduction in government spending.

Most media commentators did not point out the stream of falsehoods President Obama deployed in the above statement.

The truth is the $44 billion sequestration cuts for 2013 are one quarter of one percent of GDP. The federal government will spend $3.7 trillion in 2013.

Six years into President Bush's term, after a recession, 9/11, and two wars, our national debt was $6 trillion - after four years of President Obama's leadership the national debt is $16 trillion.

Under President Obama's leadership there have been and there will be no spending cuts - only a slight slowing in the increase of federal spending due to sequestration (which will probably be undone). When interest rates rise, as someday they must, the amount of money dedicated to paying the interest on the national debt will crowd all spending. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are going bankrupt - every informed person knows this. President Obama and the Democrats have presented no ideas on reforming Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security - the media doesn't inform the American people of this fact, a fact that needs primary emphasis.

President Obama's list of horrible scenarios may come true, not because of hard-hearted Republicans who care only about the wealthy (how could Republicans survive with such a tiny base), but because of President Obama's and Democrats' lustful spending.

We confront a governing class, the powerful institutions driving American culture - big newspapers, network news, the education system, Hollywood, etc. - that is self-interested, self-congratulatory, and shortsighted. The very Americans they profess concern for - "first responders or seniors or middle-class families" - will bear the economic hardship, while the governing class will be insulated by their wealth and influence.

Clearly an essential purpose for Republicans should be to resist the exponentially expanding power of the federal government, to hold to the principles of limited and restrained government, and restore the ideals of individual freedom. The reigning ethos of Washington D.C., sadly including elements of the Republican Party, promotes unlimited government.

We should appreciate the challenges facing the small band of elected conservatives and libertarians in Congress. There is cause for encouragement. A cadre of dedicated and imaginative first-term Senators has emerged who have demonstrated an ability to grasp the attention of the American people, despite the hostile filter of the media. And they are explicitly defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cruz: . . . If an individual is sitting quietly at a caf in the United States, in your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?

Holder: For sitting in a caf and having a cup of coffee?

Cruz: If that individual is not posing an imminent, immediate threat of death or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that individual?

Holder: On the basis of what you said, I don't think you could arrest that person.

Cruz: The person is suspected to be a terrorist, you have abundant evidence he is a terrorist, he's involved in terrorist plots, but at the moment he's not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon. He is sitting in a caf. Overseas the United States uses drones to take out individuals when they are walking down a pathway or sitting in a caf. If a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?

Holder: I do not think that would be an appropriate use of any kind of legal force. . . .

Cruz: . . . My question wasn't about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question. Does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen who doesn't pose an imminent threat to be killed by the U.S. government?

Holder: I do not believe that, again, you have to look at all of the facts, with the facts that you have given me, this is a hypothetical, I would not think that in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate.

Cruz: . . . I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you were unable to give a simple one-word answer: "No.". . . I think it is unequivocal that if the U.S. government were to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and that individual did not pose an imminent threat that would be a deprivation of life without due process.

Holder: I said the use of legal force . . . for the use of drones, guns, or whatever else would not be appropriate in that circumstance . . .

Cruz: You keep saying appropriate. My question isn't about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not. As Attorney General you are the chief legal officer of the United States. Do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a U.S. person on U.S. soil under those circumstances?

Holder: A person who is not engaged, as you describe it . . . again this is a hypothetical . . . the way you have described this person . . . sitting in a caf, not doing anything imminently . . . the use of legal force would not be appropriate, would not be . . .

Cruz: I find it remarkable that you will still not give an opinion on the constitutionality . . .

Holder: Let me be clear. Translate my "appropriate" to "no." I thought I was saying "no." Alright? "No."

Eric Holder appeared the typical establishment politico, parsing and equivocating, attempting to wriggle out of a tight corner, but Ted Cruz boxed him in, forcing him to settle on a clear "no," a response that acknowledged the primacy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This was an interchange that cut through the media filter to make an impression on the American Public.

The next day, on March 6 first-term Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) filibustered the Senate for 13 hours, making the point that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. He was supported in his efforts by rising stars and fellow first-term senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee (R-Ut), and a dozen other senators, including Ron Wyden, the only Democrat.

Rand Paul filibustered, standing on the senate floor for 13 hours, without a bathroom break, speaking for a majority of the 13 hours. It was the ninth-longest filibuster in senate history. (The longest was by Senator Stom Thurmond (D-S.C.) in 1957 at 24 hours, 18 minutes).

Rand Paul captured the nation's imagination with his filibuster. It reminded people of Jimmy Stewart in the move "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." His point was easy to understand. It penetrated the media filter and was understood by the American people.

Rand Paul brought attention to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - how often are ordinary Americans reminded of the Constitution? How many need to be introduced to the Constitution for the first time? The Constitution will be key in turning back the ever-expanding power of the federal government. The Constitution, a unique document in the history of the nations, is a firm basis around which conservatives should rally.

Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee understand that they are in a public relations battle with President Obama and the Democrats, and that President Obama is thoroughly unscrupulous. They understand that they need to stage events and make gestures that outflank an unsympathetic media. They are aggressive, determined, fearless, and effective. They need support and encouragement. *

We would like to thank the following people for their generous support of this journal (from 1/10 2013 to 3/13/2013): Mary Ellen Alt, George E. Andrews, William D. Andrews, Ariel, Douglas W. Barr, Gordon D. Batcheller, Charles Benscheidt, Veronica A. Binzley, Jan F. Branthaver, Mary & Fred Budworth, Price B. Burgess, Dino Casali, John B. Charlton, Joseph R. De Vitto, Dianne C. DeBoest, Francis P. Destefano, Alice DiVittorio, Robert M. Ducey, Joseph C. Firey, Reuben M Freitas, Jerome C. Fritz, Robert W. Garhwait, Joyce H. Griffin, Richard P. Grossman, William R. & Barbara R. Hilgedick, Steven D. Johnson, Mary A. Kelley, Martin N. & Ester M. Kellogg, Margaret M. Kelly, Edward B. Kiolbasa, Donald G. Lee, Herbert London, Frank Lonyay, Allan C. Lundberg, Paul T. Manrodt, Lloyd W. Martinson, Delbert H. Meyer, Margaret H. Montfort, Robert L. Morris, David Norris, David Olsen, Robert G. Olsen, Charles J. Queenan, David P. Renkert, Margaret Rivers Fund, Robert E. Russell, Richard P. Schonland, Jack R. Sharkey, Wayne G. Shelton, Robert E. Stacy, Thomas S. Steele, Paul B. Thompson, Jack E. Turner, David Winnes,

The following is a summary of the February/March 2013 issue of the St. Croix Review:

Barry MacDonald, in "Lessons from the Life of John Quincy Adams," shows what advocates of right-sized government should learn from this great American statesman.

Mark Hendrickson, in "Economic Outlook for 2013: ZIRP, Zombies, and the Japanization of the American Economy," believes that President Obama prefers meager growth in the private sector and chronic overspending; in "Romney and Ryan Didn't Cut It in a Time for Radicalism," he says Republicans need to adopt "radical" policies that really do reduce federal spending; in "Don't Be Fooled, No Union Rights Were Lost in Right-to-Work Michigan," he says that unions never had the "right" to force unwilling workers to pay union dues; in "Compromise or Gridlock in Washington: Unpalatable Alternatives," he asks, if compromise leads to disaster, can it be good?

Allan Brownfeld, in "The 'Fiscal Cliff' - and the Continuing Refusal to Face Our Real Financial Dilemma," writes that deep structural reforms are being ignored; in "The Founding Fathers Would Be Disappointed with Contemporary Government, but They Wouldn't Be Surprised," he says that the Founders believed that humans were "no angels," and so they framed a government of limited powers; in "Politicians - of Both Parties - Talk About Reducing the Debt, But No One Seems Willing To Do What Is Necessary to Do So," he writes that politicians refuse to cut programs that have strong constituencies; in "One Form of Government Assistance No One Mentions: Corporate Welfare," he writes that neither party has addressed corporate welfare, and thus neither party is serious about cutting spending.

Herbert London, in "The Future of the Republican Party," reminds us of the principles we hold; in "Hollowing Out the U.S. Navy," he says decline is a choice President Obama is making."

Paul Kengor, in "America's Growing Government Class," details the rapid increase of government workers and of Americans dependent on government funds; in "Slouching from Gomorrah: Remembering Robert Bork," he pays tribute to the life of a worthy judge; in "President Obama and the 'Intelligence Brief' Scandal," he reveals that for the week leading up to 9/11, 2012, attacks on our diplomatic posts, President Obama failed to attend a single briefing; in "Reverend Rubio? The Media Begins Its Attack on Marco Rubio," he writes on how to handle booby-trap questions from reporters.

In "Sustainable Development, or Unsustainable Romanticism?" Paul Driessen debunks the reasoning of UN activists who seek enormous power for the purpose of saving the planet.

In "From Atheism to Christianity: A Personal Journey," Philip Vander Elst gives a reasoned defense of Christianity. The writings of C. S. Lewis were most influential in his conversion.

In "Versed in Country Things," Jigs Gardner writes of the layers of a slowly dissipating illusion, and preparations for leaving the farm.

Jigs Gardner, in "Writers for Conservatives: Crevecoeur's America," describes the Frenchman's experience of the colonies during the Revolution, and shows how Letters from an American Farmer captures American Exceptionalism.

In "Survey of Conservative Magazines: 'Singletons,'" Fayette Durlin and Peter Jenkin discuss an article by Jonathan Last in The Weekly Standard about American demographics-a fresh and unexpected view.