The Founders' Key by Larry P. Arnn

After doing the Hillsdale College Constitution 101 course, of which I proudly hold a “Certificate of Completion”, I decided to read the book written by the president of Hillsdale, Larry P. Arnn, The Founders’ Key. This book makes a great case for the connection between the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. 

Today, Americans on the left would like to separate the two documents. The Declaration is revered while the Constitution is malleable and discarded when necessary. They believe the two pull in two different directions. The Constitution is reviled on college campuses for recognizing slavery, not being purely democratic, not ascribing power to a bureaucratic state, and finally for not including a more expansive list of “rights” now taken as givens. 

However, Arnn makes the argument, in agreement with Abraham Lincoln, that the Declaration and Constitution are an apple of gold in a frame of silver. In fact they complement each other. While it’s true that the language and ideals presented in the Declaration are soaring and universal, whereas the Constitution is much more into nitty gritty details, that does not mean they are at odds. 

The Declaration begins with a list of our rights and our ability as a people to throw off a government when it violates these basic rights. It then goes onto list the violations committed by the King. Interestingly, these complaints provide the framework for how a government ought to be set up. This document demands a government “so constituted as to prevent these evils.”

The first category of complaints involves the role of representation and the role of the legislative duties of the King and Parliament. A just government must get its power from the consent of the governed. 

The second category of complaints addresses the concept of limited government. Americans demanded a society built on self-government. Therefore, government must be limited in scope so as not to trample on the liberties of its people. 

The third category of complaints concern the separation of powers. They site the King’s interference with the legislative functions and judicial functions. Interestingly, the Declaration mentions God four times: First, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Second, “Creator.” Third, “the Supreme Judge of the world.” Finally, “the protection of divine Providence.” God, therefore alone, can be legislator, executor, and judge. Governments that usurp all three in a single office or group are trying to be like God and  are therefore tyrants. 

The Declaration begins with a timeless idea derived from the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, “all men are created equal.” Yet here they were addressing a King, a man clearly NOT their equal. So what did they mean? They recognized the truth that under God, all men are equal and the government and the laws have a duty to treat them as such. Clearly people are not equal to each other when compared superficially. One may be wealthier or smarter than another, but the Founders meant at the most basic level, a man is a man is a man. One man is not intrinsically better or superior to another. By invoking God, they have made it clear, that there is a higher form of being and that’s Him. We are under Him and equal to each other. No one is God or can claim equality with Him. Under man, are the animals. This idea made slavery repugnant because slaves were accorded the rights of beasts, not given the status of an equal to all men. So while the Declaration did not abolish slavery, it laid the moral foundation for its ultimate demise. 

Today, we have rejected the idea of Nature’s God creating us equal and have replaced it with an equality of outcome. The founder’s recognized this danger and spoke against it. The prosperity this country has experienced as a result of being declared equal and free has led to disparities of outcome. This unequal result led to a “fourth branch” of government, the bureaucracy, to enforce equal outcomes, which has rejected the idea of human nature. Our basic rights are connected and equally distributed. Yet Progressives today would destroy one right, that of property, in order to preserve the right to property. The belief that taking from the rich and giving to the poor both takes a right away from one and gives the right to another. This is the kind of inequality the founders reviled.  

The Declaration is a work of art. The Constitution if the frame that surrounds it and gives it form. A statement of high ideals needs a concrete way to create that ideal government. The Constitution answered the question, how can free and equal men govern themselves? The two documents do not in fact conflict, but one gives a practical shape to the vision of the other. 

We must return to the views of our Founding Father’s. We must reject Progressivism that rejects human nature and Nature’s God, preferring to worship science and the “inevitability of history.” This book provides and inspiring and coherent argument for the wisdom of the Founders and their two defining documents. 

Being George Washington by Glenn Beck

I love reading Glenn Beck books. They are so accessible and well written. He is not bombastic or dramatic, but speaks in common sense, every man language.

In the book, Being George Washington, Glenn Beck not only traces the history and character of our first president, but he encourages us use the man as our ideal and role model.

Beck opens with the story of Washington's defeat at a battle in Pennsylvania during the French and Indian wars. Although he miraculously survived, his British troops were undone by a clearly inferior force. The seed of an unthinkable thought planted itself in his mind that would not fully germinate for another 20 years. The British could be defeated.

The first vignette Beck recounts, in vivid detail, is the crossing of the Delaware. The story is riveting and the reader is engrossed as the familiar tale becomes new again. We discover the humility and wisdom of a man who enabled others to follow him into what should have been a suicidal mission. The soldiers had already made extensive sacrifices to even be a part of the Continental Army, but they pushed on and followed their honorable and trusted leader. The lesson for us is obvious.

Next we see Washington making his winter camp at Valley Forge. The despair and horrific conditions are well-known. Once again, we see a man of such humility, that despite the destitute conditions, his men remain loyal. Here, the soldiers become Americans. They bond, and unite and become a true fighting force that will emerge from the winter ready for battle. Washington welcomes the eccentric Baron von Steuben into the camp to help bring discipline to the soldiers. Despite the inflated credentials and lack of English skills, Washington knew exactly how to use this man and his abilities to further the cause. He looked beyond race, creed, nationality, and saw an American. Washington used the dire circumstances to prepare. What may have looked like luck to others, often was the result of plain, hard work. Even so, he did not take credit for success, but gave thanks to "the great Author" for caring for them.

Washington, like the rest of the nation, was betrayed by one of his most trusted compatriots, Benedict Arnold. The highest ranking officer of the Continental Army recognized the disappointment Arnold felt having been passed over for promotion and denied credit for the victory at Saratoga. Washington personally made sure Arnold received his desired appointment - West Point. Unbeknownst to Washington, Arnold planned to use the knowledge he would gain at West Point to help the British. His betrayal of the country was a personal betrayal of Washington. The example of this quintessential traitor provides a perfect contrast to Washington. George Washington dealt with the same incompetency of the government, the same physical sacrifices, the same challenges, yet one man rose above it and the other succumbed to the worst of temptations. "Two men, two choices, two destinies, and on invaluable lesson for today: always be on guard. It's easy to let seemingly mundane annoyances pile up until they boil over. It's easy to make the right decision ninety-nine straight times before greed finally gets the best of you."

With the help of the French, British incompetence and God, Washington cornered Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. Here, Washington's humility really becomes apparent. First of all, he listened to and took advice from those around him. He eschewed the "old-school European traditional top-down military system" and rather found innovative and practical ways to win from those he trusted. He knew his strengths and limitations. Washington did not win the war alone. He depended on others to accomplish great things. The second example of his humility is seen in how he treated the British upon their defeat. Cornwallis ended up toasting Washington, knowing he was in the presence of greatness.

Eighteen months after the victory, Washington faced his most formidable battle. His troops were threatening a coup if not properly paid by the congress. George Washington recognized this moment as the most dangerous one yet to face America. Their hard won gains for independence could be revoked in an instant if the military took it upon itself to undo the victory. Washington pleaded with the men with all the eloquence he could muster, to have faith in the Congress and give them more time to make good on their promises. Seeing he was making little headway, he remembered a note from a congressman he had tucked into his pocket. Embarrassed at having to put on his glasses to read the note, he remarked, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in service to my country." This man had given his all, and now he asked a sacrifice of them once more. They would follow him to the very end. But this decisive moment came from a lifetime of integrity. Had George Washington not been a man of exceedingly high character and integrity, the nation could very well have been still-born.

Beck then follows Washington home and to with it the knowledge that the Union needed him again. Yorktown was not the end, but the beginning of a new nation.  With the Articles of Confederation unable to govern the country, Washing was called to a Constitutional Convention. In the interim period, Washington, though having received very little formal education, immersed himself in the theory and practice of republican government. In his humility, he listened and learned. These skills would come in handy at the convention and he worked behind the scenes to create compromise. Even Washington himself was not perfectly happy with the outcome, but he knew compromise was key, without sacrificing core principles. We, too, need to learn to be in it for the long haul, to celebrate small victories, and compromise in the name of forward progress, without sacrificing principles.

Finally, we come to the end of the presidency, and shortly thereafter the life, of Washington. As he wrote his farewell address to the nation, he recalled a lifetime of wisdom gained through experience. He penned his goodbye to a nation to which he had given his all and left us solid guidance for the future. He'd seen the French Revolution and knew exactly where America could end up if we did not heed his advice. Three years later, Washington died at his beloved Mount Vernon. Truly great, Washington set the bar high. He knew his example would lead the nation for generations. "But if Washington taught us one thing, it's that doing the easy thing is rarely the right thing, and doing the right thing is rarely easy."

This book was a joy to read. Beck takes creative liberties and writes the historical portions with a literary flourish. This style makes the reader feel as if he actually gets to know George Washington. When the first president lays down his pen after crafting his farewell address, I had tears in my eyes. It's hard to say goodbye to a man who's been gone for 213 years, but I look forward to the day I can shake his hand in eternity.

The Tyranny of Cliches by Jonah Goldberg

The Tyranny of Cliches by Jonah Goldberg is an easy, quick, eminently entertaining book. He makes the case that "Liberals cheat in the war of ideas" by using cliches and thereby avoiding any serious argument. A bumper sticker response becomes all that is required to shut down the opposition. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." "The centrist/independent voter" "Hindsight is 20/20." The first is easy to destroy. What if a man is JUST a terrorist and isn't fighting for anyone's freedom? What if a man is fighting for freedom but isn't a terrorist? Are they really as interchangeable as the cliche supposes? The highly valued centrist/independent voter is simply someone who hasn't put any thought into the issues. Besides, where is the assumed "golden" center in many of the issues that we face? Suppose the issue is gay marriage. One wants no gay marriage and the other wants to allow it. Is the holy, morally correct centrist position that we should allow gay marriage every other day, in half the states, in only every other application? "Hindsight is 20/20" usually implies that history has a trajectory and had we been able to see it at the time, we would have been on "the right side." But history has no "right side" or inevitable progression. Only progressives, by their very nature see history this way. The rest of us see history as a set of facts, none of which were inevitable. Goldberg goes on, chapter by chapter, demolishing cliche after cliche.

But first he clarifies a few things. Number 1 - Ideology exists. It's existence is neither good or bad. Everyone with a brain has an ideology, but will not cop to it. Ideology is simply a worldview, a lens through you see the world. We all have certain ideas that we believe to be true and therefore use these ideas to keep from rethinking an issue every time it presents itself. If I believe that life is sacred, I don't have to spend a lot of time rethinking my position on abortion or the death penalty for the most heinous acts of murder every time it comes up. Ideologies help us make sense of the world. Without one, we float in a random morass making decisions with no logical connections  resulting in contradictory outcomes. Generally when someone is criticized for being too ideological, the actual complaint is that the person does not agree with the critic's ideology. Better to admit you have an ideology, know what it is, and recognize that it informs your decisions. Honesty. Imagine that!

Now for the cliches:
1. No Labels. People say, "Don't label me." and "Let's move beyond labels to what works." The problem is that "labels" is another name for "words." Are we really to move beyond words and still be able to have a discussion. Of course we have to label things. If I don't label my spoon a "spoon" will you know what I mean when I point and grunt and make an "eating" pantomime? What people mean really mean is don't acknowledge the truth about my ideas by telling me the truth about my ideas. Let me continue doing what I want to do unimpeded by the knowledge that you know what I'm doing.

2. Dogma. Dogma is treated as an evil that gets in the way of true progress. People are said to cling to their beliefs because their dogma will not allow them to move beyond their stated position. But dogma is simply another word for ideology. We all have beliefs that we cling to... dogmatically! I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe it dogmatically and you will not dissuade me from my belief. That's dogma. It's simply a way we categorize the world into ideas we absolutely believe to be true. If we didn't believe it to be true... we'd stop believing it... right? Without dogma, we sink into moral chaos. I believe that dogmatically, too.

3. Separation of Church and State. This cliche reverberates over and over by the liberal types when anything resembling Christianity makes itself known in the public square. A tiny cross on the seal of LA to commemorate the founding of the city by Spanish monks drives the ACLU to threaten lawsuits, but the HUGE central image of a Roman goddess is not even remarked upon. However, the left is given a pass when pushing for tax increases on the rich in the name Jesus! We are told repeatedly that the welfare state is simply doing what the Bible says, taking care of "the least of these." Social justice was and is a religious crusade begun by those desiring to bring the Kingdom of God to earth. Where's the ACLU? Clearly a national state-sponsored Church is a bad idea, but religion is inseparable from life and therefore politics.

4. Power Corrupts. Lord Acton's famous quote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" works as a great cliche to throw at an enemy. No one uses it on themselves or their side. Even when the cliche manifests itself and someone is corrupted absolutely, the fact is overlooked by the supporters of said man. See: Ted Kennedy.

5. Diversity. This great cliche shows up in universities most often. Of course them mean diversity in only the narrowest sense. Diverse diversity would work to the detriment of the desired outcome. One hundred leftist professors is not diverse. One hundred leftist professors, each one exhibiting a different shade of skin color is a University President's dream. Elizabeth Warren alleges her 1/32 Cherokee background makes her viewpoint a valuable addition to Harvard's faculty. The fact that it's not true and therefore, she brought nothing more than a plain old female, leftist viewpoint is irrelevant. As long as everyone thought she represented diversity, the campus of Harvard was that much richer. Even so, actual diversity, actually seems to cause more problems than offer solution in many instances. It helps us avoid "groupthink" but is unthinkable in the NBA. Would the addition of a bunch of one-legged midgets really make professional basketball better?

6. Social Darwinism. This "go-to" cliche is magical, "an alchemist trick that transmogrifies the gold of freedom into the lead of Hitlerism." All things bad can be labeled "Social Darwinism." (Except by the people that eschew labels. They just point, grunt and pantomime Hitlerian salutes.) Since leftists worship at the altar of Darwin, dogmatically, anything negative flowing from Darwinism must be a bastardized version of Darwin, i.e. Social Darwinism. When progressives practice actual Social Darwinism and tried to sterilize the undesirables, this is swept under the carpet. When conservatives promote capitalism as the best way to lift people out of poverty, they are accused of pursuing "survival of the fittest" philosophies and not caring about the poor. Dogmatically.

7. Slippery Slope. All kinds of ideas can be demised simply because they will lead to a "slippery slope." The problem is that there is no such thing as a slippery slope. It is metaphorical. A genuine slippery slope would, in fact, be problematic. Once set upon it, slipping downward is inevitable and unavoidable. Yet real life does not work that way. We are humans, not greased up slides left out in the hot sun. We can, at any time, realize the consequences and reverse course. While it is true that some actions make other actions easier to pursue, nothing is always inevitable. Should I steal a few pencils from my employer, I may find it easier to steal a ream of paper the next time. But I will not inevitably steal the paper. I may find the original theft abhorrent and vow to change my thieving ways. Likewise, the cliche of the dominoes indicates an inevitability that simply does not exist. Even real dominoes, when lined up perfectly, do not fall from beginning to end in perfect order. People are not dominoes. We can and do change our opinion and direction. Every fight is worth having. Nothing is set upon the slippery slope never to be stopped.

8. Dissent. We all heard, ad naseum, during the George W. Bush years that, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."Except when it's not. Dissent of a liberal president is not only, not patriotic, it's downright unAmerican! Dissent in and of itself, has no value. It's value lies in what is being dissented from and why. The lone dissenter may be brave, "speaking truth to power," or he may be a kook. Tying dissent to patriotism is a non-sequitor in any case. Patriotism, a true love of country, could lead one to unquestioned agreement or honest, moral dissent.

9. Social Justice. Just as all things bad can be labeled Social Darwinism, all things good can be labeled Social Justice. No one really has a good definition of what social justice is, but it is unquestionably doing what someone considers good and necessary. Any relation to actual justice is purely coincidental. In fact, actual justice is by definition, NOT social justice. Actual justice would demand that a man keeps what he earns. Social justice demands that a man's earning be taken and given to a favored recipient, who by definition, did not earn the reward. Social justice started as a religious movement meant to point out that true justice may not always be defined by the law. The church wanted to remind people to live their lives justly and not simply legally. Today, social justice means goodness. Therefore to be against social justice is to be for... badness...? And who wants to defend badness?

10. Community. This is a euphemism for government. The community simply bond together to accomplish what we cannot accomplish on our own. It sounds nice and squishy and the left that worships feelings loves it, but the government is the government. Making the government a squishy, feely entity is an invitation to tyranny.

11. Ten Guilty Men. We've all heard, "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished." This sounds nice and has a righteous ring to it, making us feel all moral and honorable inside. Unfortunately, it's another cliche used by the left to avoid argument. It is patently false that freeing ten guilty men is better than punishing one innocent man. One innocent man rotting in prison hurts no one. Ten guilty men can unleash a lot of damage on society. Well, it's not meant literally, but as more of a principle. Except is doesn't work in principle either. Innocent men will always be convicted as long as our judicial system relies on humans. If we are to ever punish the guilty, we must acknowledge that the occasional innocent will slip through. The "Ten Guilty Men" philosophy set an impossible standard and therefore makes all punishment out of the question.

12. Living Constitution. One of my favorite cliches to knock down. A "Living Constitution" is nothing more than a "Living Dictator." The reason our laws are written down and not subject to the whims of a living, breathing entity, is because the Founders rightly distrusted living, breathing entities. A Living Constitution is to a real Constitution what Social Justice is to real justice - it's exact opposite. However, the left only uses the idea of a living constitution when it suits their purposes. If the regular, Constitution-as-written supports their side, then the Constitution is no longer living, but set in stone, and they will argue the merits of the wisdom of the Founders to the death.

13. Let Them Eat Cake. Not only does Jonah Goldberg denounce these senseless cliches, he dives into the history and debunks many of the notions surrounding the origins of the cliche. "Let them eat cake" is a case in point. After tracing the history of the statement, it's actual meaning is, "If the common people cannot afford bread, why don't they eat the government mandated sweet cakes?" Of course, mandating that bakers give away food rarely works the way the government envisioned it. There was no cake to be given away. But the phrase is usually attributed to the mentality of the rich, callous, capitalists and their attitude toward the less-fortunate. (The term "less-fortunate" connotes that the rich are fortunate/lucky and the poor, not so much.) Yet if one is looking for the "Let them eat cake" mentality, it is to be found, not within boardrooms that must engage with and please their customers, but in the glitterati and celebrity culture usually found on the left. It is movie stars, not businessmen, that insulate themselves from the little people.

14. Violence Never Solves Anything. Except when it does. All in favor of laws, enforced by police, repeat after me, "Violence may solve something."

15. The Middle Class. This is a fun one. Ninety-eight percent of Americans believe they live squarely in the Middle Class. All politicians appeal to "The Middle Class" because it's an easy way to say "all of you." Actually, to speak of the middle class at all is a Marxian term. Marx divided people into 2 classes, but later revised it into several more. (The term "Middle Class" seems to imply there are at least 3 classes.) But we are not a class-driven society. The reason American all tend to see themselves as the middle class is because we all essentially believe we are all in the same class. That is to say, there are no classes, just Americans. However, in practice, the way the left uses the term "Middle Class" it usually means welfare for the middle class. We must retire this useless term.

16. Science. It's amazing how the invocation of "Science says..." can shut down an argument. Because Conservatives use science for facts and not the interpretation of those facts, they are considered anti-science. But it works both ways. When scientific knowledge points with certainty to the viability of a fetus, it is called an attack on the right to an abortion. When scientific facts seem to claim that stem-cells offer medical breakthroughs, we must go where the science point us. Liberals worship at the altar of science and are just as driven by faith as any radical religious fanatic. They offer "scientific" proof that the earth is warming due to man-made carbon emissions. If a little fudging of the facts is necessary, that's irrelevant. They have overwhelming faith in the global warming thesis and inconvenient facts will not detract them. In addition, liberals are "scientifically" able to prove that conservatives are mentally unstable. Everyone believes that conservative thinking is wrong. Therefore the conservatives who think those thoughts are definitionally irrational. That's not circular logic. That's science!

17. Youth. If the youth are for it, it must be fantastic. Except when they are too young. Then it's just silly. But at some magical point, the youth magically know better than their elders and we are to all stand in amazement at their wisdom. Bottom line: young people are ignorant. It is up to the older generation to pass on the values and wisdom gained through a lifetime of living in the real world. While their enthusiasm is infectious and necessary to continue this American experiment, the youth are not definitionally a force to be worshipped.

18. Ounce of Prevention. Often we will hear that prevention is much cheaper than the cure. This is probably true for an individual, certain to have a particular disease. If I know I am destined to get cancer and spend the thousands necessary to fight it, I would do well to invest in tests and broccoli in order to prevent it from occurring. But, if I will never get cancer, then I am foolhardy to run headlong over the cliff of spending gobs of money on vitamin-rich food. Better to live cancer-free enjoying chocolate. Of course, the problem is, we rarely, if ever, know who is destined to get a particular disease. So we test everyone and make everyone eat their asparagus. But testing everyone can cost more than only treating the few who contract the disease. Sounds cruel and analytical, but the argument being made is an analytical one. The fact is, prevention is better for a number of reasons, most importantly to alleviate unnecessary suffering, but it is not automatically cheaper.

19. The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is seen as bad on every level and rarely given it's due as a force for good. One particular example is the incessant calling for a Muslim Martin Luther. The thinking goes that the Catholic Church was evil and corrupt to its core. The moderate, reasonable Martin Luther came along and reformed it. A moderate Muslim is required to reform the evil, terrorist entity that Islam has become. The truth is, there are already tons of Muslim Martin Luther's. They, too want to shake up their religion and return it to it's pure roots. They see corruption and defilement rampant within their fellow believers, and are willing to use dramatic means to reform their religion. They are called terrorists. The facts are that Martin Luther was a radical, but the Church was not Islam. The pure religion Luther sought pushed the Church to return to the ideal of love for your neighbor. The Church has been disparaged in other ways as well. The Crusades. The Witch Hunts. Galileo. While the Church has not always lived up to its ideals, "everything we revere about modernity and progress -- education, the rule of law, charity, decency, the notion of the universal rights of man, and reason were advanced by the Church for most of the last two thousand years."

20. Spiritual but Not Religious. A leftist favorite. Religion - bad. Spiritualism - good. Organized religion - a sham and source of evil. Disorganized religion and a hodgepodge of mystical beliefs - highly desirable. Yet, many of the so-called spiritual beliefs which find their way into any good New-Ager's lexicon came right out of the Bible. While the left laments a lack within society of a connection to something larger than themselves, they will fight to the death to prevent a poster of the Ten Commandments from gracing the walls of a courthouse. These people are seriously confused.

21. Understanding. "If we could only just sit and a table and hash things out in a reasonable way, wars would be a thing of the past." The key is UNDERSTANDING! Yet, once again, reality is quite different. The most heinous of wars and killings were between people who understood each other only too well. "Greeks and Turks, North Koreans and South Koreans, Serbs and Croats, Crips and Bloods, Irish and English, Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant, Red Sox fans and Yankees fans; It is almost alway the peoples who understand each other best who have the worst conflicts." Rarely do the Crips execute drive-by shootings in front of the American Society of Engineers. In fact, ignorance seems to play a key role in the love some groups feel for another. We love those starving Africans we see on late-night infomercials. We have no idea whatsoever who they are or how they came to be so impoverished, but we open our checkbooks and the love pours out, but get your brother-in-law, Bob, a little tipsy and the venomous hatred is sure to pour out. Actually, the best way to promote peace is trade. Not understanding. Old-fashioned capitalism. Trading partners do not annihilate each other.

22. Democracy and Unity. Unity only works one way. You be united with me. Why would I be united with you. You're wrong. Not only is unity seen as a cure-all, but the promotion of democracy for the sake of democracy promises to transform the world. Yet pure democracy is mob rule and the Founders rightly feared it. Unity, coupled with democracy inexorably leads to totalitarianism. We vote in our dictators who rid the nation of those who refuse to unify with the rest of us. Minorities have rights. Dissent is patriotic, right? Calls for unity are calls to stifle debate and concentrate power in one group. Unify when a girl falls down a well. Unify when taking an airliner back from a terrorist. The rest of the time - Go Factions! Stand up athwart history and yell, "Stop!"

What a fun and fantastic read this book is! Now I have my antenna up and am ready for all the cliches the left can dish.

The World Turned Upside Down by Melanie Phillips

In The World Turned Upside Down, Melanie Phillips self-describes as a non-ideological, agnostic, although traditionally-minded Jew who cares deeply for the survival of Western Civilization. From this somewhat disinterested position, she began noticing that, “Society seems to be in the grip of a mass derangement.” As she saw more and more members of the intelligentsia sharply departing from reality, she sought some kind of connection between the obviously conflicting beliefs held by those in powerful positions. On a first reading, issues such as the war in Iraq, opposition to Israel, manmade global warming, Darwinism, and a host of other “isms” appear to have no commonality, yet Melanie Phillips wrote this book specifically to discover what drives these irrational ideologies.

Her basic thesis is thus: The post-religious Western world is struggling to adjust to a profound loss of moral and philosophical moorings. A consequence of this radical discombobulation is widespread moral, emotional and intellectual chaos, resulting in shattered and lonely lives, emotional incontinence and gullibility to fraud and charlatanry.

She begins by looking in depth at some of these disturbing, disconnected from reality, beliefs, starting with the theory of manmade global warming. After documenting case after case of simply made up “evidence” based on nothing more than wishful thinking, Melanie demonstrates that the theory has now become dogma. The true believers will never be deterred by facts. In fact, the quasi-religious belief system has been sustained only through intimidation and abuse of authority.

She turn next to the opposition to the war in Iraq. What rightfully started with a discussion of legitimate views on the wisdom of invading Iraq devolved quickly into a “Bush lied; people died” inversion of reality. The lie that the Western allies entered into a battle based solely upon the existence of WMD which then failed to materialize in any way, has led to mass hysteria and hatred of those in power. Yet not only did we NOT enter into war for that reason, which Phillips demonstrates time and again with actual facts and quotes, but the components of and the facilities to manufacture WMD were most certainly found. Time and again, the evidence of Saddam’s ability to manufacture and intentions to use WMD made no dent in the irrational belief system.

The next widespread irrational belief involves the history of Israel. Despite it’s historic and continued existence in the land, the conviction that Israel stole the land and has no right to it continues. Not only is the Arab claim to the land of Palestine false, but so is the contention that the Palestinians were expelled. Only when told of the upcoming war against Israel did the Palestinians voluntarily leave. Yet the defeated surrounding nations have kept the people in refugee camps to use a political props rather then incorporate them into their native societies. Israel has subsequently been accused of committing the very crimes of which they, themselves, are the victim. Once again, irrational propaganda flying in the face of facts.

Finally, she looks at the myth of scientific triumphalism, specifically the belief in a universe created, not by a Creator, but by random chance and spontaneous generation. Despite the overwhelming improbability of random chance, or rather because of it, desperate theories like “multi-verses” have been developed in order to avoid a conclusion which includes a metaphysical source. She sums up the irrationality in a quote from George Wald in 1954, “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved on hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”

As more and more faith-based, but God-denying, ideas enter society, Western liberals are forces to engage in a secular inquisition towards any dissenters. They do this through social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. In fact, “progressives on the left believe that their secular, materialistic, individualistic, and utilitarian values represent not a point of view but virtue itself. No decent person can therefore oppose them.” This explains why those on the left do not argue from a position of facts, but rather engage in name-calling.

In the vilification of Israel, Phillips starts to see a common thread. The same people that demonize and ostracize dissenters in the areas of global warming or Darwinism save their most vehement anger for supporters of Israel. “The fact that they were thus allying themselves with Arabs and Muslims who were committed to religious hatred, ethnic cleansing and genocide, and whose whole position rested on demonstrable fabrications and distortions, was dismissed or denied.” All this focus on suppressing dissent or disagreement, Phillips chalks up to psychological projection. When unpleasant realities about oneself exist, they are often projected onto others. For example, real terrorists are never referred to as “terrorists,” that label is reserved for George W. Bush. Projection. Obviously the truth is intolerable and would destroy their whole moral and intellectual identity, thus the mind-bending phenomenon of accusing the victim of the crime.

Phillips then traces the Islamic jihad against Western freedom. These are the people our so-called enlightened ally themselves with. Astonishingly, these are the people, who when called violent terrorists, respond with violence! “Say one more time that I’m violent and I’ll kill you.” Israel is accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing, yet it is demonstrably true that the Muslims engage in these crimes. The Islamists have stated time and again their desire to murder every last Jew, not over land or other pedantic squabbles, but because the very existence of the Jews is an affront to Islam.

Yet it is not only the Muslim world which engages in irrational hatred of Israel and the Jews, rabid anti-semitism can be found openly in Western societies. High ranking officials and intellectuals on the left routinely blame Israel for its woes. In the epitome of incoherency, Israelis have been called “Nazis” and therefore dismissed as pure evil and all of their actions as deriving from this evil foundation. 

What can explain the pure projection and illogical thinking on the part of those who pride themselves on rational thinking?

Here Phillips thinks she has found a link. “There is yet another factor linking these various ideologies of Islamism, environmentalism, Darwinism, anti-capitalism and anti-Zionism. In their very different ways and in very different contexts, they are all attempts to address a spiritual emptiness in the human condition -- and that give them a further common characteristic that moves them away from the sphere of reason altogether, into the province of belief.” 

The left is looking for redemption. They believe we live a millennial age wherein the perfectibility of mankind and life on earth is achievable. Only the left-wing intelligentsia possess the secret knowledge that will purge humanity of its sins and so redeem the planet from capitalism, consumerism the West, science, technology, and mankind itself. As they pursue utopia, they believe themselves to be incontrovertibly good and virtuous. As “the good guys” they are inherently incapable of doing anything but good. In contrast, those that oppose their utopian vision are not wrong, but definitionally, bad. The totalitarianism of the left is therefore actually salvation. As true believers in this godless ideology, they nevertheless require a “devil.” Any opposition to the left serves in this role very nicely. 

Interesting that they abrogate the language of Christianity - sin, guilt, redemption. Perhaps the truth is indeed written on the hearts of humanity. 

We can go back to the Enlightenment and the different paths it took to see the roots of the rejection of God. In France, reason and religion opposed each other and so the French Revolution killed God. In America and even in Britain, religion begat reason and so was inextricably linked. Yet when reason failed in the civilized Europe of the 20th century resulting in mass killings and war, the intelligentsia needed a new god. Reason was abandoned and faith mutated into belief in the state or a myriad other false beliefs.

The rejection of reason and God has led to widespread confusion threatening Western Civilization at its very core. In our tolerance and relativism, we cannot even know what it is we are supposed to be defending! We must accept our own obliteration. In addition, the rejection of God has led to a rejection of all moral authority. As Richard Dawkins put on 800 busses in England, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The fact that those who adhere to Biblical precepts are in fact the ones more likely to be enjoying life, holds no relevance to Dawkins. Of course, these “soft-core” atheists will not admit that the rejection of God necessitates the rejection of moral precepts. They’ll keep the morals they like, abandon the ones they don’t and live off the moral capital bequeathed by Christianity and the Bible. 

We come then to the heart of it. “At the very root of all the disparate secular ideologies under discussion throughout this book lies an attack on religion.”

Yet it is the Biblical worldview that places reason and therefore rationality at its center. Atheism holds that the world materialized from completely random forces an is therefore the product of an irrational source. The believer posits that a rational God with a rational mind created a rational world. It is the atheist that is therefore hostile to reason. Reason and rationality cannot exist in what is essentially a random and irrational universe. 

Only the Bible provides the foundation for modern science. “Science could proceed only on the basis that the universe was rational and coherent and thus nature behaved in accordance with unchanging  laws [and not] to the whims and caprices of the spirit world [found in other, non-Biblically based religions]. A universe devoid of the purpose given by a Creator makes progress meaningless. Yet great Christian thinkers have always held that reason and logic are God’s gifts to us in order that we may understand Him, the universe and scripture. Judaism, which has always asserted an orderly universe “can lay claim to being the most rational of all religions.” Thus the biggest target. 

Countries like Britain are at the forefront of the attack on Western values, values deeply imbedded in and twisted up with the fate of the Jews. Unlike America, Britain created an official Church. As such, the government and the church have become inextricably linked, leading to a fragile church unsure of its bedrock beliefs. The Church of England has increasingly rejected its supernatural foundational teaching, favoring instead the more material and therefore acceptable beliefs. Environmentalism, feminism, pantheism, New Age philosophy replaced the core tenets of the Church and turned it into a sacred “free-for-all.”

Finally the bottom line of this book, “Those who believe that Israel is the historic victim of the Arabs.. typically have a rational, nonideological approach to the world, arriving at conclusions on the basis of evidence. Those who believe that Israel is the regional bully hell-bent on oppressing the Palestinians, and who equate it with Nazism or apartheid, are generally moral and cultural relativists who invert truth and lies, right and wrong over a wide range of issues, and are incapable of seeing that their beliefs do not accord with reality.” Liberal Christians fall into the anti-semitism trap as well. Wanting to deny their own guilt when it comes to the holocaust and other atrocities visited on the Jewish people leads to the same kind of projection the atheists engage in. European and liberal Christians will blame the Jews for their own troubles to avoid having to admit the sins that stain their own souls. 

She ends the book quite pessimistic about the West’s ability to survive its own destruction. It may in fact be too late to return to rationality. Our only hope is a return to Biblical principles and the embracing of the Jewish people who introduced us to the eminently rational God.

The New Road to Serfdom by Daniel Hannan

After having read the original The Road to Serfdom, I was interested to read Daniel Hannan’s The New Road to Serfdom. Written from the position of an outsider, who cares deeply about America’s future, Daniel Hannan offers a stark warning to our nation.  We are in danger of losing all that it means to be America. We are about to betray the vision of our founders and forsake the “most successful constitutional model in the world.”


Thomas Jefferson knew our nation possessed an awesome opportunity to build the greatest country in the history of humankind. We had everything we needed to make us a happy and prosperous people, yet one more thing was required: a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another a, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. 


Hannan praises how well democracy works in America by contrasting it with democracy in Europe. Unlike Europe, voter participation actually climbs from election to election. He marvels at the amount of issues and offices put before the voter in America. We vote on everything! This level of citizen participation necessarily forces the government to pay attention to public opinion. Although we on this side of the Atlantic might lament our powerlessness and the “you can’t fight city hall” mentality, Hannan optimistically points to America as a place not jaded into non-participation and effectively locked out of the process like our European counterparts. 


To discover the genius that is America, Hannan goes back to our founding documents, the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, and compares them to the EU Constitution. The major difference concerns the former’s focus on individual liberty and the latter’s focus on the power of the state. Concerning itself with the regulation of every aspect of life imaginable, the EU Constitution runs 10 times as many words as our own revered document. While our founding fathers worked diligently to separate power between the three branches of government as well as the state, the EU is run by a Commission that serves in both the executive and legislative arenas and is impervious to the ballot box. Unlike America, where power rests ultimately in the hands of the people, the intellectuals of Europe feared the masses and so wrested the power from them. Ironically, America only put into practice what it had learned from Europe. Separation, diversity, and freedom led Europe into competition and eventually dominance in the world. They have since turned inward while America continues to practice federalism, constantly experimenting to find what works best. As we become more nationalized, we lose the advantages of the efficient, more responsive to public attitudes, state competition. 


We are in fact, becoming more European as we hand more and more power and control over to the federal government. While federalism encourages experimentation and economic growth, the real benefit of state power lies in the its ability to prevent the growth of an ever-increasing central state. However, beginning under President Woodrow Wilson the federal government began to expropriate more power to itself. Fashionable thinking held that central planning and nationalization of regulation and standards more efficiently grew the economy. After multiple Constitutional amendments, including one guaranteed to set Thomas Jefferson on edge, the 16th giving Congress the right to tax income, FDR further expanded federal authority. His disciple, Lyndon B. Johnson used his presidency to push the limits of Washington DC well past the boundaries set by the Constitution. The expansion continues today as cries of “DO SOMETHING!” resonate. Unfortunately, once enlarged, the government never shrinks.


Liberals are forever trying to change our society to be more  Europe. They look at the success the welfare state has achieved and assume we can follow the same path. Unfortunately, like Margaret Thatcher said, “Pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.” It has become obvious, that given the conditions after WWII, prosperity was almost unavoidable. But now reality has set in. Europe simply has stopped growing and is in danger of bankruptcy. With Obamacare, America has attempted to follow the European path on healthcare. Yet while many in Europe recognize the massive failure of socialized medicine, it has become entrenched to the point of paralysis. No reforms are allowed for fear of offending the employees of the system. We are moving toward a European model in our welfare. Little noticed was the fact that the Obama stimulus effectively undid the exceptionally successful welfare reform passed under Bill Clinton. Yet the state has created generations of the underclass and destroyed the fabric of society in its attempts to alleviate poverty. Hannan states, “The first generation raised with cradle to grave welfare, to be excused from the traditional responsibilities of adulthood, was also the first to give up on parenthood... church attendance...[and] the social values that traditional morality had encouraged.” We are headed towards Europe in the way we treat immigrants. America was built by and for immigrants and as Reagan said, “Each immigrant makes America more American.” We give newcomers something to believe in. Europe distrusts patriotism and creates schizophrenia in its newcomers as they have nothing to be loyal to in their new land. Hannan urges Americans not to abandon federalism and parrot Europe, for our own good as well as the rest of the world.


Hannan admires America’s position when it comes to our superpower status. He admonishes us to continue to stand apart from the rest of the world and not be a slave to world opinion. America, more than other nations, acts practically and pragmatically, not basing our behavior or fleeting emotions or what sounds and looks good.  As such, we have resisted the siren call of the supra-nationalism that has consumed Europe. We have not signed onto treaties and bodies such as the International Criminal Court which  overturns the precedent set throughout human history of national criminal courts. However, Obama flirted with the idea of giving legitimacy to the ICC when his administration supported the ICC in the pursuit of Sudan’s head, al-Bashir. Since Sudan is not a signatory of the ICC, the implications are staggering. Obama has publicly stated that supra-national bodies have the right to criminally prosecute the heads of any nation in the world! Hannan implores us to retain our sovereignty and eschew the call of international supremacy.


Finally, Daniel Hannan praises Americans for recognizing the danger which face our great nation and rising up in the form of the Tea Party. He commends the conservative think tanks that furnished the conservative movement with a cohesive ideology. Together, these united a substantial number of Americans to act as foot soldiers, bringing the message to their neighborhoods and, most importantly, voting. He follows the history of conservatism from its “blue-blood” past through the rise of modern conservatism cultivating with the Contract With America. When conservatism lost its way under George W. Bush, and was declared dead with the election of Obama, the Tea Party rose and reasserted core conservative values.


Hannan encourages America to revel in our values. Align ourselves with like-minded nations in what he calls the Anglo-sphere. We don’t need to sacrifice our sovereignty, but rather inspire by example, offering our hand to those nations that hold our values. He closes with a “heartfelt imprecation” from a friend, “Honor the genius of your founders. Respect the most sublime constitution devised by human intelligence. Keep faith with the design that has made you independent. Preserve the freedom of the nation which, by good fortune and God’s grace, your are privileged to belong.”

FDR Goes to War by Burton & Anita Folsom Part 2

Roosevelt needed to pay for the war. America had already buried itself deeply in debt before the war began. FDR's ready solution - raise taxes. When the income tax was implemented in 1913, it affected very few Americans and was only paid annually. Seeking to maximize tax receipts the first year, the bill was applied retroactively. Giving the very wealthy time to gather the payment, tax day got pushed to March 15. FDR lowered the tax burden to include millions of Americans in the 1930s and he found it increasingly difficult to wait until March 15 to collect. The ever-brilliant FDR determined to combine raising taxes with paycheck withdrawals. However, trying to collect the previous year's taxes while simultaneously withdrawing the current year's taxes led to cries of double taxation. For some citizens, it would result in a taxes exceeding 100% of income. Although FDR had coveted a 100% tax rate throughout his presidency, even some of his most loyal supporters balked at 100%+.  Withdrawal promised less painful payment of taxes, a pay-as-you-go system, and this in turn would allow the government to raise taxes with less resistance. FDR threw in the illusion of "tax forgiveness" for the previous year. No one would actually see any savings, taxes would begin being withdrawn immediately, but it sounded good! Besides, for the wealthiest, a hefty estate tax would absorb anything left over at death.

The tax debate led to a class warfare debate. Some, like FDR wanted a 100% tax for incomes over $25,000. That failed, but taxes still reached up to 90% on the very wealthy. Progressives in Congress argued against giving the richest citizens a "gift" of hundreds of thousands of dollars by "forgiving" the 1942 taxes.  Yet, because their tax rate well exceeded 50%, their rate for the 1943 tax year would, in some cases be up to 180%! Many in Congress contended this was fair since they shouldn't be making that much anyways. Conservatives and businessmen reacted violently. Never in American history had the well-off been so vilified and abused. America had no right to limit incomes. Rights came from God and inherent in our Declaration was the right to what you most naturally own - life, liberty, and property. FDR, however believed rights came from government and in times of war, the government remained well within its right to take most, if not all, of a man's earnings. The final bill reflected FDR's desire to take as much as he wanted with no respect for the rights of individuals to keep what they earned. Three-forths of either 1942 be 1943's taxes would be cancelled. This would help the lower classes who could pay the 25% still required in installments, but the higher classes would see their taxes raised to 100% or beyond for the year 1943. The resulting monstrosity had even its authors flummoxed when  trying to explain how someone could pay more than they earned.

"FDR amazed friends and enemies alike by his willingness to break laws and bend the Constitution." His was a view that considered right and wrong rather than legal and illegal. Since his motives were deemed to be pure, of course what he did was always in the right, legal or not. Although declared illegal by the Supreme Court, Roosevelt openly defied the law and wiretapped both friend and foe alike. He not only bugged phone lines, but used the Secret Service and FBI to conduct investigations of any who piqued his interest. Political enemies were threatened with blackmail and newspapers intimidated. Many who knew themselves to be in FDR's crosshairs overpaid their already hefty taxes to elude the unavoidable IRS investigation and subsequent penalties to be unleashed upon them. However, FDR not only punished his enemies and kept his friends in line with threats, he used the millions of federal dollars at his disposal to reward acquiescent citizens. No list of FDR's offenses would be complete without the mention of the internment of Japanese-Americans, which shames not only FDR, but his modern cheerleaders who overlook this most blatant violation of civil rights.

Being a fellow man of the left, Roosevelt always looked to Stalin for inspiration and direction. Of course the brutal tactics repulsed him, but one of his closest advisors, upon visiting the Communist nation stated, "I have seen the future and it works." Even if it meant throwing Churchill under the bus during negotiations, FDR would surreptitiously work to get into the confidence of Stalin. He believed the communists to have a good heart, was seeking to do the Lord's work and help society while Americans only looked after themselves! In fact, it was Churchill, as the head of the British Empire, who appeared to be the imperialist to FDR.  Roosevelt even deluded himself so far as to believe Stalin a Christian and Russia tolerant of religion! Delighted that Russia was finally our ally, Roosevelt sent supplies and arms to Russia at astonishing levels. FDR undercut Churchill in the historic meetings that took place between the three leaders. Stalin convinced FDR to allow Russia an unimpeded path directly to Berlin over Churchill's strenuous objections. Roosevelt chose to play his "hunch" about Stalin rather than rely on facts provided to him by the British and his own administration. The result became the Soviet Eastern European Bloc after the war and untold death and misery.

In 1944 Roosevelt ran for an unprecedented 4th term after an unprecedented 3rd term. However, Roosevelt had to contend with hiding his rapidly deteriorating health. A friendly reporter who visited him in March stated, "He had lost a great deal of weight. His shirt collar hung so loose on his neck that you could have put your hand inside it. He was sitting there with a vague, glassy-eyed expression on his face and his mouth hanging open." In addition, polls had him losing to Dewey 30 to 51. Roosevelt decided to shake up his campaign, drop Wallace as VP and bring in Harry Truman instead. His wartime committee tasked with ferreting out waste and fraud had succeeded quite well. However, FDR still faced Republicans in congress who had dismantled most of his vote-buying machine as well as his propaganda arm. Therefore, Roosevelt helped unions organize the first-ever PAC to "educate" and mobilize union workers. He avoided the press and photos in order to hide his decaying health, citing pressing war business. While Dewey savaged Roosevelt's inability to better the economy, Roosevelt hammered home his plea not to entrust the war to a novice. Dewey also pressed the issue of the Communist infiltration at all levels thanks to Roosevelt's infatuation with Stalin. Roosevelt's health rebounded and he appeared in an open car to put to rest all rumors. He also began offering another New Deal to take place after the war. Between playing classes and ethnicities against each other and union support, he went on to defeat Dewey.

Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, only 3 short months after his fourth inauguration. His condition had been hidden from the public with such skill that the nation was totally unprepared. The stunned new President Truman found himself negotiating the surrender with the Germans and faced with the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.

With the war won, what was to become of the economy as millions of soldiers returned home? Truman had a plan, but so did the Republicans in congress. Truman favored the ideas of John Maynard Keyes who argued for more centralization and government control. Large taxes and large deficits would stabilize the economy and set it on the right path. Truman pushed for passage of Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, guaranteeing such things as a job, food, clothing, a home, health care, education and old age/disability/unemployment insurance. In short, he desired to turn the foundational rights the founder's recognized as those things which you naturally own (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/property) into a government giveaway of other people's money and resources. Thomas Jefferson would have been horrified to see his carefully worded founding document so trashed! Government, not God, was Roosevelt's guarantor of rights.

Fortunately, the sudden surrender of Japan after the dropping of the bombs left Truman no time to implement the progressive policies he favored. "The sudden end of the war startled the planners. Few government programs were in place to give jobs to retuning veterans." The Keynesians frantically sounded the alarm. Democrats in congress and the president scrambled to implement a "full-employment" bill - calling it the Fair Deal. Although called fool-hardy and worse, the Republicans instead cut taxes across the board. Knowing Roosevelt had strangled businesses with taxes as high as 90%, they believed an agenda of freedom would return America to prosperity. Many remembered the examples of the Warring and Coolidge presidencies and the resultant "Roarin' 20s." While Truman pleaded for the Second Bill of Rights, the market created the 60 million jobs in one year that the Keynesians believed could only be created with government stimulus. Meanwhile, the tax cuts led to record federal revenue as the authors predicted they would. The Keynesians, however, were unrepentant, blaming the booming economy on luck! Nothing has changed!

The elections of 1946 vindicated the Republican efforts as they took both houses of congress for the first time since 1928! The New Deal officially ended. Of course Truman took all the credit for the amazing economic recovery and  ran in 1948 on class warfare rhetoric and threats of a return the Great Depression if Republicans were allowed to continue cutting taxes. The famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline shows how that ended. Quietly, Truman begin implementing Roosevelt's "rights" and we are dealing with the fallout today of a huge entitlement state. Too bad Dewey did not in fact defeat Truman!

FDR Goes to War by Burton & Anita Folsom Part 1

As soon as I saw it, I knew I had to read this latest book by Burton and Anita Fulsom. FDR Goes to War is a good companion book to their previous book New Deal or Raw Deal. While that book deals with the domestic economic policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this book focuses solely on the other Roosevelt, the war president.

FDR was reelected in 1936 because he used domestic policies that literally bought votes, because he rabidly demonized business as the cause of the Depression, and because of American's growing fears of what was happening in Europe. After the bruising battles of WW1, Americans, quite understandably felt fairly isolationist. In addition, seeing Stalin and Mussolini rise to power with their brutal, fascist regimes caused Americans much trepidation. Could this be America's future? Credit to FDR for not going down either path and keeping America a republic, but at the same time, he had no problem ignoring the Constitution (see: wiretapping). Navigating these confusing and dangerous times, FDR knew takes a strong hand.

Unfortunately, recognizing the isolationist bent of Americans, while Roosevelt knew war was coming, he did not prepare. How could he ask the very companies he tried to punitively tax simply for being successful to now switch to building war materials and help him prepare the country? His extreme spending on New Deal programs had drained the coffers and led to dismaying borrowing. In the butter or guns question, he knew guns would be necessary, but butter got him the votes.

By 1940, Europe was already in the midst of WWII. FDR faced businessman Wendell Willkie for an unprecedented 3rd term. Willkie ran against FDR's devastating attacks on business and his failed economic policies, however FDR outwitted him. In the months running up to the election, FDR made up with business, paying them to ramp up making supplies to help Britain. While still claiming isolationism, he turned his presidency on a dime to get ready for war under the veil of helping our allies. Additionally, the accomplished genius Roosevelt knew how to distribute tax dollars in the most politically beneficial, if not most efficient, manner. His reconciliation with business and the focus on the very popular doctrine of isolationism for us and help for them, sucked the wind out of Willkie's campaign and FDR went onto victory.

After the election, FDR came to terms with how unprepared for war the US was. His New Deal would have to be sacrificed. As Secretary of War Stimson summed it up, "The whole thing is a great clash between two big theories and interests. If you are going to try to go to war, or to prepare for war, in a capitalist country, you have got to let business make money out of the process or business won't work, and there are a great many people in Congress who think that they can tax business out of all proportion and still have businessmen work diligently and quickly." But one thing would not be sacrificed. Despite their direct interference with Roosevelt's attempts to prepare for war, unions continued to strike and amass power. However, after awhile, even Roosevelt lost patience with the strikers and sent the Army into a plant to bust the strike.

Despite statements to the contrary, the U.S. was not ready for war in the Pacific when Japan hit us at Pearl Harbor. The people in charge had underestimated the Japanese capabilities and 3000 men died as a result. It was clear by early December that the Japanese would launch an attack somewhere in the Pacific, most likely in the Philippines or Singapore, yet we had no way to disseminate the growing warnings efficiently. The telegram informing Hawaii of an imminent attack was in a messenger boy's bicycle pouch when the bombs hit. While Roosevelt was looking for a good excuse to get the U.S. into the war, he believed the attack would be minor. The extent of the damage shocked the administration. Churchill could not hide his relief that the United States was finally, officially in the war.

In the initial stages of the war, due to lack of preparedness, the U.S. lost battle after battle. However, FDR controlled the reports getting out to the public with his Office of Censorship. It was almost a year before the tide began to turn and the U.S. began to drive back the Japanese in the Pacific and the Germans in Africa.

On the homefront, FDR implemented price and wage controls. Groceries became rationed goods and counterfeit ration books became the rage. The halls of Washington D.C tightly controlled production of all goods in our country. With raw materials in short supply, goods such as copper and rubber were highly regulated by the federal government. Shortages resulted from the controls put in place by FDR and by the sudden increase in demand for items such as blankets and guns for the military. Uncharacteristically, Roosevelt put the needs of the country above his own famous hard-line politicking. Having to wind down his Depression-era programs like the WPA which had always delivered him votes, cost the Democrats dearly in 1942. He stopped demonizing the business world and offered an olive branch to get their help if he was ever going to win the war. His fear, however, was that if he didn't buy votes and castigate the "fat cats" the Republican would win the Presidency. Believing that the only way for him to be reelected in 1944 required winning the war, Roosevelt drastically shifted his priorities.

"If 1942 had been a year of disorganization and defeat, 1943 became the year that American and its allies began to win the war."The Nazis surrendered in Russia, and in Africa, America finally made progress. In 1941 the race to develop an atomic bomb began. Using the huge stockpile of silver which Roosevelt had bought at above market prices to appease the West to replace the extremely scarce copper, American scientists scrambled to build the necessary equipment and facilities to succeed.

Shortages characterized much of the wartime. The administration set up the Controlled Materials Plan, the War Productions Board and others like it to regulate scarce resources. In addition to price and wage controls, food rations, and usurpation of various industries, jobs began to fall under Roosevelt's control. As is always the case when government steps in to regulate and limit, scarcity resulted. The Democrats took the blame for the deficiencies and Republicans went onto win state elections in 1943, raising hopes of defeating Roosevelt in 1944.

The war would not be won without the enlistment of business. "Many New Dealers were outraged to see billions of dollars thrown at large corporations to build their factories, swamp them with business, guarantee their profits and remove their risks." Roosevelt, too, hated to cater to the very industries he had just so effectively demonized in the previous election, but winning took precedent above all. He actually pressured the Justice department to abandon anti-trust lawsuit against DuPont because the weapons they produced were so desperately needed. The lawsuit could wait until after the war. In fact, Roosevelt actually  encouraged businesses to collude in order to most effectively innovate and create the materials needed. Principles fell when a war/reelection hung in the balance. Unleashed from the suffocating New Deal policies, business produced amazing results. In their respective roles in the war efforts, future presidents Eisenhower and Truman both recognized that had New Deal regulations stayed in place, America would have either lost the war or seen victory far delayed. "The war business - with its subsidized factories, cost-plus contracts, and guaranteed markets - was the only game entrepreneurs could play in the United States in the 1940s. Thus, the played it. Even with the hight tax rates, it was a better game than FDR had offered them in the 1930s - when he denounced them as 'economic royalists' and created perpetual uncertainty." Is it any wonder the Depression lasted 10 years?