"The political system itself helped bring on the Civil War.  The mechanism assembled over the first half of the nineteenth century turned around binary choices between two parties and only two parties.  Party regulars demanded that true loyalists were all or nothing. To be undecided and open to persuasion was to be less than a man.  As the two-party system strained and broke in the 1850s, American voters took this habit of mind with them; they felt driven to dichotomous choices of Republican or Democrat, Union or Confederacy. Voices of caution and moderation were drowned out beneath charges of cowardice and betrayal.  With each decision the next round of choices became even narrower: yes or no, now or never, with us or against us."

Substitute “2000s” for “1850s,” and (say) “Secular Progressivism or Traditionalism" for "Union or Confederacy,” and ask yourself whether this description rings true in 2010.

It was not that long ago that Ronald Reagan was a clear voice of reason in American politics. He is attributed with the observation that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” That was then.  How quickly, it seems, that the Reagan conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, have forgotten Reagan.

I have been a student of history since I could read – certain school marks notwithstanding – and in my early years enjoyed visits to the household of Tony and Phyllis Stein, Tony being a fellow newspaper journalist of my father and the Steins having become family friends.  Tony Stein had a library chock-full of books on the American Civil War. I suspect he had tracked down one copy of everything published on the subject; there were that many books.  My brother Chris and I took the first opportunity to retreat to the Stein reading room and haul out a few volumes for study and perusal – and not once did we squabble over who got a book first -- there were that many volumes available.  We slipped into accounts of the Civil War so intently that Phyllis Stein had the seriously mistaken impression that we were quiet, well-mannered, and well-behaved young boys.

Much of the “history” of the American Civil War, it turned out, was distirted by fictions, from both North and South.  The underlying causes were of course related to slavery, but the threads of the national fabric unraveled in strange ways.  At some point it dawned on me that the Civil War simply happened – no one really expected it, the country was unprepared for it, and the headlong leap into violence resulted in a war of unanticipated carnage and destruction. At some point, up to no later than the eve of the first battle of Manassas, say, the Civil War could have been avoided. But it had happened anyway.

Thus I was struck by the second marked passage of Ayers’ evaluation of “What Caused The Civil War?”:

"Slavery was a profound economic, political, religious, and moral problem, the most profound the nation has ever faced.  But that problem did not lead to war in a rational, predictable way. The war came through misunderstanding, confusion, miscalculation.  Both sides underestimated the location of fundamental loyalty in the other.  Both received incorrect images of the other in the partisan press. Political belief distorted each side’s view of the economy and class relations.  Both sides believed the other was bluffing, both believed that the other’s internal differences and conflicts would lead it to buckle, and both believed they had latent but powerful allies . . . that would prevent war."

I ask again – does this not begin to sound familiar?

No, I don’t believe that a second civil war is imminent; but then, in January 1860, virtually no one foresaw what was to come in the next several years.  To be sure, there is no real danger that one side or the other of our current political mess will intentionally start a war. But only some wars are started intentionally.  Nazi Germany knew full well that attacking Poland in 1939 would bring about war with France and England; Hitler wanted that war and was prepared to fight it.  Imperial Germany in 1914 did not intentionally go to war but instead it mobilized in preparation for war, bound by a treaty with Austria-Hungary, then matters lurched forward with preparations on both sides, and the Great War happened.  A war for which neither side was truly prepared and which neither side knew how to win. A war prompted by a gunshot in a far-away place, Sarajevo, well outside of the realms of Germany, France, and England, which took the brunt of the carnage.  

Thus, studying history convinces me that some wars simply happen, with the proximate cause of hostilities being that someone began to prepare for war.  The proximate cause needn’t be close at hand, and in the Middle East, there is a rogue nation preparing for war.  Eventually, if Iran is not brought to heel – and under our present government, that appears unlikely to happen – there will be a serious war and it may spread to our homeland.

There are signs that Americans are choosing sides – perhaps subconsciously – in anticipation of a more violent future.  There are fewer who report themselves as being “independent” or “moderate” and more who report themselves as “conservative.” Rifles and ammunition have been selling briskly throughout the country for more than a year. The first year of the new Federal administration has been marked by incidents of violence in the homeland. Ayers’ description of America in 1860 becomes increasingly apt for America in 2010.

And often it seems that we can only watch the gathering storms.

* * *

Ronald Reagan, again: “History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

“One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns.”

“I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.”

The nature of the beast was exemplified by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, after meeting with the President, announced with cameras rolling that her agency had followed the necessary procedures (and thus was absolving itself of any blame).  Ironically, in the context of Federal government culture, every word she uttered was true and correct.  Her agency made no mistakes and committed no errors. Instead, the State Department had reached the practical limits of Federal success.

Federal agencies do a wonderful job of slamming the barn door shut once the horses have gotten out.  This has been going on for weeks, and will continue for weeks to come: shutting down the Newark airport when an inattentive guard leaves his post and someone walks through the chokepoint unmolested to kiss his lover goodbye; scrambling F-16s when a drunken passenger gets out of hand on an airliner in flight. SLAM! SLAM! SLAM! (Just what were those F-16s going to do to get that drunk under control? Well, I suppose shooting down the plane would get the job done, but . . . . )

So here’s what we can expect: Barn doors will be slammed shut loudly and often for a while, adduced as proof of agency competence and alertness.  At the same time, more lone gunmen (mostly with bombs, rather than guns) will be sent to make terror attacks.  They will be supported by jihadist organizations bent on designing weapons which escape detection, but they will not be in cells in the United States, and thus they will be harder to detect.

In the short run, there is only one way to deal with the lone gunman – profiling. That’s a dirty word in the political Left.  It marks you as a bigot, or a racist, or a reactionary, or something else nefarious and morally repulsive.  To serve the high moral purposes of progressivism, we must not profile; instead, we must use inherently inefficient and less effective methods like random selection.  You search a Nigerian, you’d better search a Norwegian as well, or you’re politically-incorrect toast.  Muslims coming from Yemen must not be treated any differently than a group of small-town midwestern Methodists returning from a trip to the Holy Land.  Most citizens realize that profiling is necessary, see Rasmussen Reports, 63% Say Political Correctness Kept Military From Preventing Ford Hood Massacre, but the progressivist tail will keep wagging the Federal dog for the time being.

Prior to the Christmas Day attack, most Americans -- Republicans included -- had been lulled or gulled into a pre-911 mindset.  See Gallup (December 2, 2009), Majority of Americans Think Near-Term Terrorism Unlikely.  Ironically, the Obama administration reacted by (1) blaming George Bush and (2) characterizing the attack in terms descriptive of a "lone gunman" in order to minimize its significance. Correct on both counts.  Despite the shoe-bomber attack in 2003, the Bush administration did not push for choke-point profiling of individuals, but opted for making all of us take off our shoes -- the more inefficient choice -- and thus demonstrated unwittingly the practical limits of Federal success.  Many Americans therefore owe their lives to the slow learning curve of Al-Qaeda jihadists.

So here’s what else we can expect: Because the present administration is heavily influenced by the political Left, it will avoid profiling as long as it can.  It matters not that airport profiling has substantial public support.  See Rasmussen Reports, 59% Favor Racial, Ethnic Profiling For Airline Security. And sooner or later, another lone gunman will slip through the inefficiencies of government. We can only hope he has no better a detonator than the Christmas Day bomber and pray that there’s an athletic young Dutchman sitting nearby.

Republican candidate Bob McDonnell

Oh, He Probably Shouldn't Have Said That -- In a related story carried by the Associated Press, Virginia Senator Jim Webb is reported as saying that the nation "is watching to see whether Democrats can win the governor's race and other statewide offices." Oops! This is contrary to the Democratic Party line, which minimizes the importance of the Virginia election.  Maybe Senator Webb didn't get the memo.

Winning Your Own Neighborhood -- It is extremely difficult to win an election if you can't carry your neighborhood, and it looks like Creigh Deeds is about to be shellacked in his own bailiwick.  Deeds hails from the Shenandoah Valley area but the Mason-Dixon poll shows this to be McDonnell's strongest region, by a margin of 67% to 29%. If you recall the 2000 Presidential election -- and who doesn't? -- you know that Democrats blame their ticket's loss on the Florida vote count and/or the Supreme Court decision in Bush versus Gore.  But the fact is that Al Gore couldn't carry his own neighborhood, that is, the state of Tennessee.  Regardless of the Florida outcome, if Gore had won his home state he would have been elected President in 2000.  So it seems likely to go with Deeds, as his home folks prepare to vote for McDonnell.  True, Deeds may poll slightly ahead in McDonnell's native ground, Fairfax County, but McDonnell is well ahead in his present home area of Hampton Roads.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia Election — Mason-Dixon Poll Corroborates Republican Lead

Virginia Election -- A Hammer and Tongs Finish

Obama’s Belated Virginia Effort Running Against The Tide

Virginia Polls Confirm Big Lead For Conservatives

In Virginia, Dems Dis Deeds As Republicans Roll

As of this writing, the polling data indicate a substantial conservative margin among likely voters.  The reports for the week of October 21-28:

Poll                        Date    Sample     (R)     (D)   Margin 
Rasmussen Rpts     10/28   1000 LV    54      41    McDonnell +13
Daily Kos/R2000   10/28    600 LV    54      44    McDonnell +10
Suffolk U.              10/28    400 LV    54      40    McDonnell +14
Roanoke Coll.        10/27    569 LV    53      36    McDonnell +17
SurveyUSA            10/26    502 LV    58      41    McDonnell +17
PublicPolicy            10/26    729 LV    55      40    McDonnell +15
Wash. Post             10/25   1206 LV   55      44    McDonnell +11
VCU                      10/25    625 LV    54      36    McDonnell +18

Although the Democratic ticket was polling as close as 7 points in the previous week, every poll released this week has put the Republicans up by 10 points or better.  The results given above are stated for the McDonnell-Deeds contest for governor but the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general follow suit.

The eight individual polls display a range of results from +10 to +18 points and some of them have relatively small sample sizes.  Differences in methodology and political orientation may make for a certain degree of variation in results. Nonetheless, the aggregate of all eight polls covers 5,631 likely voters and individual differences to some extent cancel out when the numbers are aggregated.  The weighted average margin for the Republicans is +12 points, more than double the reported undecideds. 

Typically, an election narrows in the closing days, and this one may.  But there is not much room to play with for the Democrats; even if they win all of the undecideds, they're still down by 7 points. 

There are several significant trends reflected in the data.  While Democrats who intend to vote strongly support the Democratic candidates, relatively fewer Democrats intend to go to the polls.  Republicans strongly favor their candidates and are more likely to vote.  But the biggest factor is independent voters, who are likely to vote Republican by a margin of almost 2 to 1. This represents a strong turnaround from the 2008 Presidential election.

None of the Republican candidates can be described as "charismatic," or even "exciting." Or, frankly, all that interesting. They are essentially standard-issue GOP suits more likely to be thought of as "reliable" and "conservative." But they are politically savvy and have campaigned well, making the Virginia election a referendum of sorts on both state and national economic issues.  In that regard, the Virginia results may be significant for the 2010 mid-term elections.

Personally, I favor the Republican candidates, but without much enthusiasm.  There is no candidate in the statewide races with a strong libertarian orientation and there is no third-party alternative on the ballot.  As usual, it is a lesser-of-two-evils choice. The special Congressional election in New York's 23rd District is far more interesting because the third-party candidate may do better than make a good showing -- he is in a good position to win.

The authors of the study use four factors to generate state-by-state rankings: fiscal policy, regulatory policy, economic freedom, and personal freedom. These scales are combined to produce an overall ranking. Here are the top ten (most free) and bottom ten states, according to the study - - with some colors I have added:

Table V: Overall Freedom Ranking
State Overall Freedom
1. New Hampshire 0.432
2. Colorado 0.421
3. South Dakota 0.392
4. Idaho 0.356
5. Texas 0.346
6. Missouri 0.320
7. Tennessee 0.284
8. Arizona 0.279
9. Virginia 0.275
10. North Dakota 0.268

41. Connecticut -0.225
42. Illinois -0.238
43. Massachusetts -0.242
44. Washington -0.275
45. Hawaii -0.304
46. Maryland -0.405
47. California -0.413
48. Rhode Island -0.430
49. New Jersey -0.457
50. New York -0.784

If you hadn't already guessed, the colors came from a recent "Red State - Blue State" map; dark blues are reliably Democratic, light blues are usually Democratic, light reds are usually Republican, and dark reds are reliably Republican. (No purple "swing" states were in the top or the bottom ten.)

Measured by the conventional, two-dimensional view of American politics, the top ten (most free) are a mix of dark Red States and light Red States with one light Blue State. The bottom ten are all dark Blues. Also note that the bottom ten include a high proportion of the states which are currently suffering severe economic distress - - like California, which is so broke it cannot pay its bills, and New York, which is trying to raise every tax in sight.

The authors reach some conclusions with interesting implications for those who (like me) have a strong libertarian streak:

Although we hope we have demonstrated that some states provide freer environments than others, it would be inappropriate to infer that some states enjoy a “libertarian streak,” while others suffer from a “statist mentality.” Other research has shown that state politics, like federal politics in the United States, plays out largely on a single left-right ideological dimension defined by sociocultural attitudes toward equality, authority, and tradition. The libertarian position simply does not show up in the data as a live political alternative. Indeed, one might well argue that throughout history, human freedom has emerged not because political leaders have consciously sought it, but as a consequence of balancing forces (church and state, king and nobles, and institutional forms) that happen to check the arbitrary exercise of power in particular times and places. Why then do some states protect individual liberty more thoroughly than others if not because of a libertarian ideology? In our index conservative states have generally done better than liberal states, but moderately conservative states have done best of all. Previous research has shown that, as of 2006, Alabama and Mississippi were the most conservative states in the country, while New York and New Jersey were the most liberal. In our index Alabama and Mississippi fall in the middle, while New York and New Jersey are at the bottom. The problem is that the cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments. While liberal states are freer than conservative states on marijuana and same-sex partnership policies, when it comes to gun owners, home schoolers, motorists, or smokers, liberal states are nanny states, while conservative states are more tolerant. We should not attribute this relative freedom in conservative states to any philosophical respect for freedom inherent in contemporary political conservatism, but simply to the fact that the conservative position in the culture wars tends to require less regulation. However, extremely conservative governments do not appear to afford any more freedom overall than do moderate, centrist governments.

From a libertarian perspective, it seems that we need to deliberately inject a second dimension into American politics - - the libertarian-statist dimension, which is too often lost in the one-dimensional arguments between liberals and conservatives.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Freedom and Failure, State-by-State

Abstract of the study

Powerline Blog piece

Because I have spent so much time in clinics and waiting rooms and medical facilities, I know that Canadians who can afford to are coming to the United States for medical care, especially for cancer. Many Canadian medical facilities are outmoded; tests are often delayed; treatments are often denied. With cancer, delay can mean the difference between arresting a colony of mutagenic cells in time or having to deal with incurable metastasized cancer. Time is of the essence; so the affluent and the wealthy come here, where health care is not rationed.

The chemotherapy drugs which saved my life in 2007 were not available in Canada. The death rate from colorectal cancer in Canada is 25 per cent higher than in the United States. The reason for the discrepancy is that Canada has "universal," government-run health care, and the United States does not.

Is our health care system "broken?" Hardly. We have the best medical centers, the best equipment, and the best diagnostic testing that money can buy. Top-notch doctors come here from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Philippines, and other countries. The United States is the world leader in medical innovation:

"Ultimately, lost or constrained innovation impacts public health. Access to new drugs, for instance, is far superior for American consumers than European ones. For cancer patients, access to new drugs is crucial: a report by the Swedish Karolinska Institute, published in the Annals of Oncology, found that "The United States has been the country of first launch for close to half of the oncology drugs brought to the market in the past 11 years." The authors of the report observe that "Nearly half of the observed improvement in the 2–year cancer survival rate between 1992 and 2000 at 50 US cancer centers could be attributed to the use of new cancer drugs," evidence that America's embrace of new medicines translates into saved human lives.

"The evidence is unmistakable: Europe's pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a long and steady decline, and Europe's bio–tech industry is lagging significantly behind its American counterpart. What is also clear—but far more controversial—is that by adopting certain aspects of the American R&D system, Europeans could regain their innovative and competitive edge."

Science Pioneer Cautions Europe on Declining Medical Innovation

"But one argument against universal health insurance isn't so easy to dismiss: the argument about innovation and the cutting edge of medical care. . . . In a universal coverage system, the government would seek to limit spending by forcing down payments to doctors and pharmaceutical companies, while scrutinizing treatments for cost-effectiveness. This, in turn, would lead to both less innovation and less access to the innovation that already exists. And the public would end up losing out, because, as Tyler Cowen wrote last year in The New York Times, 'the American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.'"

The New Republic, Creative Destruction.

Is our health care system "unfair?" Of course it is. "Life is unfair" - - President John F. Kennedy. But the Canadian health care system is also unfair -- more so, because it denies health care to some of those persons who pay the taxes to subsidize the system. Is it selfish to say that those with more money should be able to buy better health care? Of course it is -- but self-interest is the best measure of value in a free society and because of the money paid and contributed by so many of us self-interested types, American health care is better for everyone.

Do I wish that every child in America had access to quality health care? Of course I do. But not at the cost of damaging or destroying the system we have now. Most children have health insurance of some kind now. Our health care system has an exemplary record of treating children who have cancer. In the year I was born, childhood cancer was fatal within five years in more than 95 per cent of the cases; the survival rate now exceeds 75 percent!

"Childhood cancers showed some of the largest improvements in cancer survival during the past 20 years, with an absolute survival rate increase of 20 percent in boys and 13 percent in girls. The current five-year survival rate of over 75 percent confirms substantial progress made since the early 1960s, when childhood cancers were nearly always fatal." National Cancer Institute, "Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Incidence and Death Rates on the Decline: Survival Rates Show Significant Improvement."

"Universal," government-run health care will inevitably condemn some of those children to early death.

"Universal," government-run health care will inevitably condemn many adults like me to early death.

In both cases, the question is not "whether," but "who."

It is likely that cancer will eventually kill me. Because cancer treatment is physically punishing and has long-lasting side effects, both physical and emotional, the day may come when I decide that I have had enough. But that should be my choice; I should not be left to die because medical care is rationed. I am not a "victim" of cancer; I am a cancer survivor who doesn't want to become a victim of bureaucracy.

This is my testimony. Thank you for reading.

Adolf Hitler was a poor student of mathematics, but he got the hang of it sufficiently to figure how to take over the German government. A "majority," Hitler reasoned, consisted of 51 per cent of the votes necessary to control 51 per cent of the seats in the legislature - - 26 per cent of those voting, in other words. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans now find themselves victims of the same political calculation.

Newt Gingrich summed up the financial meltdown quite well: "This is a catastrophe."  I would go a bit further and say, this is a CRAtastrophe - - CRA meaning "Community Reinvestment Act."  The unrestrained use of the CRA to compel banks to issue sub-prime loans may not be the only factor in this mess, but it is the primary factor - - the "but for" cause.  But for the trillions in CRA loans, the financial meltdown would not have happened. See The Real Cost Of Social Engineering.

The CRA, adopted in 1977, was actually a good thing for decades, as long as it was treated as a goal.  In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration decided that insufficient CRA loans were being made to low-income borrowers and adopted a "command-and-control" interpretation, threatening to penalize banks with did not meet CRA goals.  In addition, the new regulations provided for origination fees to be paid to community organizations, like ACORN and its subsidiaries, which found new borrowers for CRA loans. These CRA loans were typically sold on the secondary mortgage market to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which dove into the process with exuberance.

By 2003, this process was clearly out of control. The Bush Administration proposed measures to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Republicans in Congress pushed a measure to the Senate floor, where it failed to come to a vote because uniform Democratic opposition left the bill short of votes to close debate.  The bill died, as did another such measure proposed in 2005.

When the housing bubble burst beginning in 2006, what had been predicted by John McCain and others came to pass:  CRA borrowers began defaulting on their "walk-away" mortgage loans.  Many of these borrowers had purchased houses with 100% financing - - no down payment had been required.  Banks are now reporting that CRA defaults have in many cases exceeded 20 per cent of the bank's total CRA loans - - a huge, unprecedented default rate.

Large numbers of CRA loans had been purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and bundled into so-called mortgage-backed securities.  These securities were sold to other banks as "investments."  MB securities had hundreds or thousands of mortgage loans bundled together, and often had a face value of $1 billion or more.  When CRA defaults began rolling in, the value of all of these MB securities was called into question.  Suddenly there were no buyers for the securities and investment banks and other financial institutions which could not meet their capitalization requirements began to fail.  Then came the Wall Street bailout.

The bailout was "sold" on the questionable claim that the MB securities we taxpayers are supposed to be purchasing will eventually return double or even triple their cost. See Congressman, I Have One More Question Before You Vote On The Wall Street Bailout. Meanwhile, the Congressional Democrats have been totally unrepentant and remorseless about the matter, insisting that George W. Bush is to blame. See Fear and Loathing on Capitol Hill.  Worse yet - - by including a $20,000,000,000.00 piece of ACORN pork in the first version of the bailout bill, the Congressional Democrats made it totally clear that they intend to return as soon as possible to finding ways to create more CRA loans - - back to business as usual!

Change we can believe in? I think not.  The Pork Special at this Congressional cafeteria is getting too expensive for my wallet.

Waiter! CHECK, PLEASE!

# # #