ConservativeHome's Platform

Herb London: On multiculturalism's retreat and the challenge with which it presents us going forward

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers).

At long last a European politician, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, lifted the curtain on the pernicious dimensions of multiculturalism. After several decades of home grown terrorism and an acceptance of separation by Muslim groups in the United Kingdom, the prime minister said, “enough.”
 
A new course will be charted that moves from accommodation to integration. There may be a risk of xenophobia with the Cameron approach, but it is a worthwhile trade-off if terrorist impulses are thwarted.
 
Mr. Cameron called his strategy “muscular liberalism,” to wit: confronting extremist Islamic thought and challenging those efforts that attempt to undermine Western values. For example, the prime minister made special mention of zero tolerance for the subjugation of women, a practice permitted because of Islamic separation and application of sharia.
 
The notion that different groups within a society should be encouraged to pursue their own cultural paths is a formulation based on religious tolerance. But as George Santayana, among others, noted the first duty of the tolerant man is to exercise intolerance for intolerance. In other words, a proverbial line in the sand must be drawn when religious groups use societal tolerance to promote intolerance.
 
For at least two generations Europeans have failed to integrate immigrants into their societies. These are recent immigrants who don’t speak the language of the host country and have not accepted the basic historic and cultural background of the nation in which they now reside.
 
After observing the corrosive influence of multiculturalism a consensus is beginning to emerge. In addition to Cameron’s comments, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared multiculturalism a “total failure.” Swiss voters approved a ban on the construction of new minarets on mosques. French authorities have issued a prohibition on burqas and other full body robes worn by some Muslim women. And the Swedish Democratic Party, which had almost no influence in the politics of the country, gained 5.7 percent of the vote in national elections after campaigning on a platform of anti-multiculturalism.
 
France, which has about 10 million Muslims, has introduced mandatory courses for all immigrants on “French values,” women’s rights and an overview of the national history. Whether national identity can be imbibed or transcend religious imperatives remains to be seen.
 
From a sociological perspective integration represents a compromise between the traditions of the mother country and the host nation. Presumably one can be French, share the tradition of liberalism and at the same time be a Muslim. But is this compromise realistic? Will Islam allow for sharia to coexist with liberal traditions?
 
On the other hand, assimilation demands the acceptance of the host nation’s values and the shedding of the past. This is an all or nothing position that forces a stark and unalterable choice. Put bluntly, “if you want to join us, you will do so on our terms. After all, no one has forced you to enter our shores.”
 
Clearly Europeans have a right, some would argue an obligation, to defend their Christian heritage against an onslaught from radical Muslim intrusion. The question is how best to defend those traditions. Cameron’s well stated diatribe against multiculturalism is the sound of national tocsin, a battle cry to preserve British culture. On this side of the Atlantic it is a welcome statement that sets the tone for the challenges the West now faces and will be facing in the decades ahead.

Raheem Kassam: Don’t believe every poll – foreign policy credentials will matter in the 2012 presidential race

Raheem Kassam is the Director of Campaigns for the Henry Jackson Society – Project for Democratic Geopolitics 

Tim Pawlenty was one of very few to take the time to rail against Obama’s foreign policy at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago, but it’s becoming glaringly obvious that the President could face down certain GOP opponents in this area.  It all depends on who the Republicans see fit to field.

Isolationists will have you know that foreign policy isn’t at the top of the agenda for the electorate right now – it’s not even close.  But nor was it the deciding factor in the 2000 elections which featured most prominently; education, social security and – you guessed it – healthcare.  In fact, 32% of television spots between September and November 2000 focused on healthcare.  Just 0.2% were foreign/defence related in 2000.  It’s an issue that doesn’t need to dominate the mind of a voter – they just need to know their candidate has some semblance of understanding of foreign affairs; the nouse to act on their behalf on the world stage.  As Donald Trump remarked recently – there are reasons why Ron Paul isn’t electable for President.  Potentially similar reasons for Trump himself.

Presently the national deficit, government spending and civil liberties dominate the political discourse.  But America is not out of step with the rest of the world as some would try to have you think.  Debates are raging over Egypt, Libya and Iran, not to mention the current theatres of war along with South America and the world island of Eurasia.  The GOP must not fall into a tea-party concocted trap of fielding a straight up pacifist – it would cost them too much in 2012.

Most of what we’ve heard so far are vague criticisms espousing Obama’s failure to act decisively.  Rick Santorum suggests the US ‘turned its back’ on Hosni Mubarak – as if Egypt’s past few decades of rigged elections and 'emergency rule' were something for Americans to be proud of sponsoring.  A Cold War reality became a morally questionable irrelevance and Obama will take points from having this democratic revolution occur on his watch without committing U.S.resources. 

At CPAC just over a week ago, a straw poll once again was topped by the isolationist Senator Ron Paul.  Don’t let it fool you.  Most voters were under the age of 25, thus the sum total of their experience of U.S. foreign policy is less, ‘Tear down this wall,’ and more ‘Dude, Where's My WMDs?’  Older audiences will be reassured to see the U.S. maintain a strong defensive capability and an exceptionalist attitude.  Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the embodiment of this – his foreign policy credentials (or lack thereof) necessitated the Biden shaped padding in his administration.  But after a CPAC once again dominated by isolationists, Tim Pawlenty was the one who came out on top in terms of strategic defense.  Perhaps a sign that the GOP need to consider a bold, varied ticket for 2012.  McCain and Palin, leagues apart in appearance at the least, began to mirror each other as the election drew closer in 2008.  It's crucial that a Republican ticket gets the balance and difference correct. 

Although Pawlenty is polling ahead of Palin, Gingrich and Paul – he’s still at only 7% to Mitt Romney’s 40%.  Romney wasn’t bad on the subject matter – but when you hear Pawlenty echo what the world has been thinking about the United States’ international policy, that is, ‘We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, the Czech Republic and Colombia, among other friends,’ you tend to think that unless the GOP finds the dream team of someone tough on big government and tough on foreign affairs – it’s going to be Obama 2012.

George Lightbourn: With all the straightforward simplicity of Vince Lombardi, Scott Walker is doing what he said he would do - bring Wisconsin back to fiscal sanity

George Lightbourn is president of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

Vince Lombardi, perhaps the most famous of all Wisconsin sons, ran his football team to reflect his own personality.  He relished it when the opposition knew what play was coming and still they could not stop it. Lombardi teams were uncomplicated, determined and ultimately successful

Those same traits define Governor Scott Walker.  He ran for governor on a simple platform that included restoring honest budgeting to state government, one that required cutting spending rather than increasing taxes or borrowing money.  Those who do not know Scott Walker might have dismissed his plan as so much political chatter. They had no clue that this man actually meant what he said. 

He operated that way in running Milwaukee County.  That is a county where union roots run deep and where traditional politicians were consistently frustrated by Walker’s determination to hold the line on taxes (eight budgets without an increase) and to require concessions from public sector unions (reduced the workforce by 20%). Determined but not harsh – Walker is widely regarded as a decent fellow – he proved himself to be the taxpayers’ bff. 

Having risen to the bigger stage of state government, Walker’s resolve has been unaffected.  He excels at the unglamorous side of governing – producing unflashy, balanced budgets, the kind of budgets that a generation of politicians has avoided. He was welcomed to the governor’s office with a deficit of $3.6 billion and without blinking he set out to stanch the red ink without borrowing or using the gimmicks that have become the staple of statehouses throughout America. He is willing to talk honestly about the magnitude of Wisconsin’s problem and is equally willing to propose painful solutions that he sees as necessary.

Walker set up shop in the seat of government in Madison.  Like so many states, state government in Wisconsin has been the domain of organized labor since the early 1970s.  Wisconsin is both the birthplace of AFSCME, and the first in the nation to authorize collective bargaining for public workers.  Organized labor’s fingerprints are everywhere in state government. 

AFSCME and the teachers’ union became a force in the State Capitol by providing money and ground troops to support labor friendly candidates - nearly all of whom are Democrats - a strategy that paid huge dividends for unionized workers.  State and local workers in Wisconsin have one of the richest defined benefit pension systems for which employees contribute .06% of the cost and which produce much richer retirement benefits than their neighbors in the private sector.  A WPRI study showed that a public sector worker with a salary of $48,000 has a retirement benefit equal to a private sector worker with a $70,000 salary.  On the health insurance front, public workers contribute only about 6% to the cost of their health insurance.

In spite of organized labor’s best efforts, the political tsunami that swept America last November washed over Wisconsin. Overnight, the statehouse flipped from bright blue to bright red. The public unions and the Democrats were stunned and to this day, have yet to regain their balance.  Soon after the election, they unsuccessfully attempted to ram through union contracts in the waning hours of a lame duck legislative session.  Then, in early February when Walker announced that he wanted to curtail public sector collective bargaining as well as have employees contributing more to their own benefit package, labor took to the streets. 

The nation has seen Wisconsin public employees of all stripes marching through the streets of Madison and through the most beautiful State Capitol building in America. In a bizarre bit of theatre, the Democrats in the State Senate fled that very building, fled the city, and even fled Wisconsin. We now see that they were attempting to buy time and now we know why. The Senate Democrats revealed that they had an agreement from all of the employee unions to agree with the governor’s plan to require employees to contribute ½ to the cost of their pensions and 12% of the cost of health insurance. However, they insisted that Governor Walker drop the notion of curtailing collective bargaining.

Once again, they revealed how little they understood Scott Walker.  Their overture might have been appealing to a nuanced, deal-making politician. That is not Scott Walker.

No, Scott Walker is determined, not just to balance the current budget, but to ensure that state and local governments in Wisconsin will be able to balance their budgets in the years and decades to come.  He is a determined man – some call him stubborn – one who is not given to highbrow speeches or sweeping theatrics.  He is a man of principle who runs the government as though utterly unconcerned about his reelection. 

Academics have written volumes about how to go about transforming government. Yet it has been left to Scott Walker to show the entire country how it is actually done, by adhering to his principles and doing the required blocking and tackling.  Vince Lombardi would be pleased.

Raheem Kassam: If you want to see what a Conservative conference should really look like, you should have been in Washington last week

Raheem Kassam is the Campaigns Director for The Henry Jackson Society.*

Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the most recent idol of the masses - Congressman Ron Paul.  Long bygone and more recent speakers you could expect to find at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC.  It took place last week, with 11,000+ delegates - and I was there for my second experience.

There are hundreds of top level speakers, back to back - inspiring, drumming up support for their campaigns and even taking some jeering on the chin when they step out of line with what is a split American conservative/libertarian audience.  If this just sounds like the Conservative Party Conference to you, then I'm not doing a good enough job yet.

I know we conduct our politics differently, but there are so many tips and tricks that we can learn from our counterparts overseas and plenty that small delegations of Brits have taught them over the past few years also.  Activism shouldn't stop at blogging or leafleting.  In fact, those are just the foundation.  Things like straw polls, webinars (online seminars) and sponsored sessions could do more to inform the droves of activists to which the Conservative Party here already has access.

But there's a trick - CPAC isn't partisan per se.  Of course you'd be hard pushed to find a Democrat around, (although someone did shout across the hotel at one point, "right wing devils!")  CPAC appeals to the broader 'Right' movement.  From pro-lifers, LGBT groups, the NRA to Muslim conservative groups, libertarians, neo-cons, Austrian economics buffs to anarcho-capitalists - they're all under one roof.  They're fuelled by the presence of one another - engaging in the best ecumenical discussions I've seen in years, testing each others' premises to breaking point - mostly amicably - but so that both parties are able to take the fight to the real opposition post-conference.  It's informal, it happens in the bars and pubs surrounding the venue as well - but it's undoubtably the benchmark.  The Republican Party only convene once every four years - perhaps there's something in this.
Pivotal to all of this is the passion.  The mood is different.  The average age is probably about 25 years old - a far cry from the 45-60 mean of Tory conferences.  I'm not suggesting the Conservatives chuck out the stalwarts - but it's about making the premise attractive for youngsters.  Currently at UK party conferences, youngsters attempt to get around to whatever events have some free food and/or alcohol.  There are few sessions set up explicitly for them, let alone 20-30 different youth-aimed booths.

This isn't a proportional issue either, it's a monopolistic one.  Currently, Conservative Future own the monopoly on the centre-right - and it often fails miserably at mobilising members.  The monopoly here must be broken to allow different organisations with specialisations to fill the gap.  The Young Britons' Foundation has shown how it can be done - but it requires input, time and most importantly, money.

The most important point to make when juxtaposing CPAC and Tory conference is about the energy, the atmosphere.  There's always expectation, delight or anger, never complacency or disinterest.  This is because they still mean it.  They refuse to kowtow to 'progressivism', the welfare state or government run monopolies. They still mean what they say about being a conservative, about low taxes, about smaller government and a strong national defence.  Not only do they believe in it - they become furious when their beliefs are under attack.  The emotion in speeches carries to the audience and remains with those activists and future leaders.  When did you last see a British politician get furious purely for ideological reasons?  It's healthy, but it rarely happens here.

So there's what makes CPAC as successful and inspiring as it is.  This year, I will be saving my money from party conference and putting it towards my next trip to the US.  Despite their inability to rally around one leader at the moment, the American Right at least have their passion in order - now it is our turn.

*This post originally appeared at ConservativeHomeUK.

Paul Revere: If we can't even get the extra $22 billion in cuts, how can we trust Republicans to make the big changes necessary for my generation's future?

Paul Revere is in his 20s, and is concerned about the impact of the growing national debt on his generation. Not much younger than when his namesake made his historic ride, he works in the wake of a tea party to challenge his fellow countrymen to find the courage to act now.

The other day I wrote a post for Race42012 decrying the cowardice of some Republicans in the House of Representatives. Rather than hold to the promise of $100 billion in spending cuts and the promise to bring non-defense discretionary spending down to 2008 levels, scores of Republicans voted with the Democrats to keep $22 billion in funding.

There are too many things wrong with this, from the dollar amount to the breaking of the Pledge to the indication of a lack of budget seriousness among House Republicans, to even scratch the surface of all of them. I’d like to focus instead on the major problem with this new development: that the second bad week in a row for young Americans indicates that the American Dream really is gone for us.

I know, I know. It’s apocalyptic. Yet if Republicans can’t even get to $100 billion now, how can we trust them to tackle entitlements and defense (including spending on Iraq and Afghanistan), over 2/3 of the President’s proposed FY2012 budget? How can we expect them to substantially reduce the approximately 1/6 of American workers who work for the government, and thus do not expand the size of the economic pie nor expand the size of the tax base? How can we expect them to substantially improve our tax code via a Flat Tax or Fair Tax, neither which is perfect but (to quote Charles Krauthammer, who was talking about corporate tax reform, but it applies here as well) “[e]liminate the loopholes to broaden the tax base, then lower the rates for everyone, promoting both fairness and economic efficiency[?]“ Finally, other than a few senators (Rand Paul, Tom Coburn, Pat Toomey and Jim DeMint) and a few Congressman (Ron Paul, Paul Broun, some of the freshman and a few others), how can we count on Republicans to hold the line on the debt ceiling and put America on a path to a balanced budget?

The simple fact is that we clearly can’t assume any of the above necessary changes are going to happen. I hate to say it, but pretty soon we’re going to find out just how different Americans are from the Greeks, British and French— will we continue to put faith in politicians who clearly have no will to do what’s good for the country; will we vote for better politicians and try to wipe the slate as clean as possible while working within the rules of the current American political system; or will we have a rebellion that reboots the entire system?

I hope #2 is a viable option, but with the President’s budget aiming to put $130,000 of debt on the shoulders of each American worker by 2021 (with rosy assumptions, according to some), and Republicans continuing to balk at the lowest-hanging fruit…yeah, we’re definitely going to find out how much Americans really want the American Dream to live on.

Paul Revere: A bad week for young Americans who take spending cuts seriously

Paul Revere is in his 20s, and is concerned about the impact of the growing national debt on his generation. Not much younger than when his namesake made his historic ride, he works in the wake of a tea party to challenge his fellow countrymen to find the courage to act now.

When I first began writing for ConservativeHome, I had hoped to do a fair amount of positive commentary about the national debt. I had hoped to write about the daring steps Paul Ryan was taking as Chair of the Budget Committee and the quick movement of an audit of the Federal Reserve through the House of Representatives. I had even hoped that I could brag about the strategy they used to convince Democrats vulnerable in 2012 to join with them— perhaps even including the President.

Unfortunately, the bad news just keeps coming. It’s coming due to Republican failures of leadership. It’s coming due to bad luck for the Republican leadership, such as having to put off dealing with spending because of the shooting in Arizona and Chris Lee’s travails. It’s coming because President Obama is not serious about spending reforms. To me, these bits of bad news all indicate that young Americans won’t see the reforms and spending cuts they (we) so desperately need. Take a look at the depressing news just this week:

1. Republicans tried to pass a bill that would have pulled $180 million from funding the United Nations, but failed by over two dozen votes. While only two Republicans opposed the bill, it failed because it was brought up under special rules to fast-track passage without allowing debate over amendments. Had they brought it up under normal rules, as they are likely to do in the near future, it would have passed.

2. The Republican Study Committee (RSC) had to fight, tooth and nail, for the leadership to promise $100 billion in spending cuts. While normally this would be a “ho-hum” statement, the fact is that the leadership promised this back in September 2010. Are they really going to start reneging on their word this early in the 112^th Congress? I doubt the freshman Tea Party candidates are going to go along with that.

3. Instead of focusing on spending strategy, the Republican leadership had to spend time and valuable media resources scrambling to explain not one but two failed votes on provisions of the Patriot Act. They also had to deal with now-former Congressman Chris Lee’s (R-NY) Craiglist escapades.

4. Two Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee voted against the Committee’s support for Paul Ryan’s cuts. Unlike liberal Republicans, Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) voted against their leadership because the cuts were too small

5. President Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) wrote a stunningly pitiful op-ed in the New York Times about how the $400 billion in non-defense discretionary spending the President will propose cutting in his upcoming 2012 budget are tough cuts. Instead of mentioning said cuts and moving onto entitlements and defense, Jacob Lew spent practically the entire op-ed acting as though $400 billion—less than 1% of our expected federal expenditures over the next decade— was where the tough cuts began and ended. He finally got around to mentioning defense spending offhandedly near the end, and dedicated one sentence to Social Security, but that’s it. As CATO’s Tad DaHaven put it, it looks like “the administration intends to continue fiddling while the government’s finances burn.

Obviously, few of these mishaps are devastating in and of themselves. However, we are at a critical juncture for our country and, in the short run, for Republicans. They can’t waste time playing political games and making strategic mistakes as the President ignores fiscal reality. This is especially true with the 2010 Continuing Resolution ending in less than three weeks and the debt ceiling expected to be breached less than three weeks after that. We need competent, brave leadership, and we need it now. If this week is any indication, 2012 cannot come soon enough— and not just to oust President Obama.

UPDATED: Two Revolutions: America's leaders must speak out in support of freedom in the Middle East

Will Inboden is a Distinguished Scholar at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas-Austin, and a Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy magazine.

Even as events in Egypt play out almost faster than the news cycle itself, last night’s news of Mubarak’s desperate grasping at power reverberates across the Middle East, and around the globe.  The dictator’s defiance is a challenge to freedom, and conservatives across the Anglosphere should recognize it as such.  But if February is to be remembered in history as the month of liberty for the people of Egypt, the current standoff must soon give way to a democratic transition.  And the United States can play a crucial role. 

Specifically, the Obama Administration – ideally President Obama himself -- should immediately and publicly call on Mubarak to step aside now. Republican leaders should do the same.  And the White House and Republican leaders should together announce America’s active bipartisan support – diplomatic and economic – for free and fair national elections that are open to all peaceful parties in Egypt.  It should make clear to a transitional post-Mubarak government supported by the military that the United States expects it to be just that – transitional – and that its two primary responsibilities are to preserve basic order while taking active steps to support multiparty elections.

The United States has nothing to gain from supporting Mubarak any further at this point. The octogenarian autocrat has already written off the US and feels beholden only to his own interests. Meanwhile, the Egyptian people clamoring for Mubarak to go still wonder if the US supports their aspirations for liberty, opportunity, and a better life – or stands with the dictator whom they see as the obstacle to those aspirations. President Obama and Republican leaders need to speak out publicly and unequivocally, so that the Egyptian people wonder no more whose side we are on.

Amidst the prevailing standoff in Tahrir Square, not to be forgotten is that before Egypt, there was Tunisia.  And before Tunisia, there was Iran. It was, after all, the 2009 Green Movement protests in Iran that first signaled that the Middle East of the 21^st century would not be consigned to the status quo of the previous 50 years, when autocrats and theocrats alike stifled freedom and held forth their false promises of stability or revolution, respectively.  Just as Iran’s Green Movement protests helped sow the seeds of events in Egypt today, so now Egypt’s protests are terrifying Tehran, where the mullahs fear any further inspiration for Iran’s reformers. Ironically, today marks the anniversary of the Iranian revolution.  It was thirty two years ago on February 11 that the Shah fell from power, replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini and his murderous regime. 

Some commentators take away the wrong lesson from this history, and conclude that America should always support dictators in the region, lest there be more Islamist takeovers such as Iran in 1979.  The right lesson is rather this: America should support freedom in the region, which provides the most enduring type of stability and antidote to extremism.  As Charles Krauthammer writes today, the United States needs to adopt a freedom doctrine that supports democracy and democratic reformers across the region, while opposing the Islamists who might seek to hijack it. A robust freedom doctrine would include political liberty, economic liberty, and religious liberty – all of which are inimical to the Islamist agenda.

What this coming week holds, let alone the rest of the month or year, remain uncertain and will no doubt defy the best prognostications. There are no sure guarantees that Egypt will not be taken over by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But such a dismal fate would become more likely if the US remains on the sidelines or behind Mubarak – and will be less likely if we extend our support now to the Egyptian people in Tahrir Square. 

UPDATE: Well one thing I suppose I got right when first writing this post is that "events in Egypt play out almost faster than the news cycle itself" -- Mubarak's defiance of last night gave way today to the reality that he has lost his country, and he at last is stepping down.  Let us hope that this will mark February 11 as the day when the Egyptian revolution of 2011 overtook the Iranian revolution of 1979 as the region's pivot point.  As the Obama Administration continues to play catch-up, their flat-footed posture over the last two weeks mirrors their neglect of the last two years.  The White House now needs to make a forceful, clear, and direct statement to the Egyptian military and the Egyptian people of American support for their transition to democracy. Republicans should do the same, and can contribute further by developing the tenets of a "freedom doctrine" that supports democracy and opposes anti-democratic Islamist ideologies, much as the US distinguished democratic elements from communist parties in post-war Europe. For a lesson in what not to do, one needs only look at the Obama Administration's woeful record in Egypt the last two years -- and consider that in this area the George W. Bush Administration got it right.

Paul Revere: It's time for Republicans to step up to the plate and realize they need to get to $100 billion in cuts just for political survival - "no questions asked, no nuances debated"

Paul Revere is in his 20s, and is concerned about the impact of the growing national debt on his generation. Not much younger than when his namesake made his historic ride, he works in the wake of a tea party to warn his fellow patriots of impending doom - unless they exercise the courage to act now. He will be posting regularly at ConservativeHome on spending issues to encourage his fellow patriots to find that courage.

Last week on Race42012.com I offered a cautionary note about the right’s near-worship of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Noting some of his past votes, including those for TARP, the Medicare Drug Bill and the auto companies’ bailout, I said I would be waiting for his recommendations as Budget Committee Chairman before considering joining the choir.

Well, it appears my concerns were warranted. Despite a letter from the conservative Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) Chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force and 89 co-signers to House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) requesting the Speaker hold true to the $100 billion in Pledge to America-promised spending cuts, Ryan only came up about three-quarters of that amount. While Ryan should be commended for bringing non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels for the rest of the fiscal year, his proposed budget for the rest of FY2011 still spends far too much.

Nor am I the only one concerned about this lack of cutting courage. A bit harsher than me is Erick Erickson, who points out that while the rest of the fiscal budget is cut back to 2008 levels…the Pledge to America promised $100 billion in cuts. Since the President’s 2011 budget never materialized due to a Democratic lack of courage before the November elections, for Republicans to say they want to cut $100 billion from a budget that does not exist is suspect, to say the least. Furthermore, it gets into the weeds of “$100 billion for the fiscal year” or “2008 discretionary spending levels on the rest of the fiscal year,” nuances that: a) most Americans don’t understand, and nor will their favorite pundits, b) will be used effectively against Republicans in the 2012 elections, and c) show that Republicans are willing to engage in the same run-around logic politicians are infamous for.

To be fair, budget hawk Kevin Williamson of National Review thinks this is a good sign of Ryan’s seriousness. Probably as concerned as I am about the fiscal crisis America faces, Williamson had this to say about the proposed budget in a post entitled “Excellent News: Paul Ryan is Serious”:

“This is a compromise, and not one that the deficit hawks really wanted. The original plan was to cut a full $100 billion this year; some Republicans argued instead for a prorated cut that reflects the fact that part of the budget year already has passed, applying the 2008 standard only to the remaining seven months. That’s what we got — a  compromise that hawks ought to be able to live with.”

As a deficit/debt/fiscal hawk, this is why I can’t live with it: our deficit is expected to be nearly $1.5 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). While some of the nuances of the deficit can be debated— do extension of the Bush tax cuts really add to the deficit and the debt?— the fact is that the deficit is, again, gigantic. Even granting Ryan his full $74 billion in cuts from the proposed FY2011 cuts (again, cuts from a non-existent budget, but a budget I presume CBO bases its analysis on), and comparing them to a $1.5 trillion deficit, these are cuts equivalent to less than 5% of the deficit. Using the actual $32 billion in cuts from the FY2010 budget, this is equivalent to just over 2% of the deficit.

When all is said and done, Republicans need to cut $100 billion just for political survival. No questions asked, no nuances debated. As noted by this Red State post, the $100 billion in promised spending cuts is basically arbitrary. After all, does anyone really believe 2008 was a fiscally responsible year? With economic growth sluggish and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warning that our bond ratings are in trouble, Republicans need to step up to the plate. Of course, it would be nice if they cut enough to actually make a difference (something Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Tom Coburn (R-KY), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), have proposed, but cutting $100 billion really won’t), but keeping their word on initial budget cuts would be a good start to earning back the trust of the American people. 

President Ronald Reagan's legacy: three principles that changed the world

Josh Mead is an American living in London and working at the Taxpayers Alliance.

To try and write about the 40^th President of the United States is a truly daunting and overwhelming task, but to do it on his 100^th birthday and succinctly is even more intimidating.  Reagan’s presidency is arguably one of the most significant of the 20^th century, and as I sat to write this piece, my thoughts moved to three principles that defined both Reagan the president and Reagan the man: his sense of virtue, his sense of compassion and his sense of perception.  Reagan maintained these three principles throughout his presidency, which one could say changed the world.

First, President Reagan was a man who had an incredible amount of virtue. There is no doubt that he truly saw the world in terms of good vs. evil. He was famously noted for his condemnation of the evil empire and pursuing ways that would place it on the “ash heaps of history.”  On March 3, 1983 while delivering a speech in Florida, President Reagan said “to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding is to remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.” Reagan was deeply discouraged and worried about an aggressive Soviet Union that loyally believed in the words of Lenin, who said “wouldn’t matter if 3/4 of the human race perished; the important thing is that 1/4 be communist.” Whilst many prophesied an uneasy bi-polar world on the brink of nuclear war, President Reagan pursued a policy that would dismantle a totalitarian regime and build a lasting democracy.  In the book Reagan, In His Own Hand, he wrote “that a dictatorship was based on fear, but a democracy was built on virtue and when that is dissolved democracy ceases to exist.”  Not only did Reagan’s virtue inspire the free world during his administration, but it left a lasting mark on future policy makers. Former Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice has often attributed President Reagan’s “moral vision for America and the world” as a reason why she joined the Republican Party and pursued similar foreign policy goals.

His second undeniable attribute was his sense of compassion. During her eulogy to him, Lady Thatcher said that Reagan sought to free the slaves of communism and to invite enemies out of their fortresses and to become friends. Reagan realized that value of basic human rights in and was often critical of the Carter and Ford administrations for being too weak and one sided with the Soviet Union. He said that you couldn’t treat the Soviet Union as a “normal country” because their draconian practices of denying basic human rights to their citizenry set them apart as true example of tyranny, therefore policies of appeasement wouldn’t stop their aggression. Reagan spoke out harshly against regimes in Cambodia, China, and Cuba. He saw the moral imperative the free world had in delivering people basic norms such as freedom of religion and the right to own property. He was particularly critical of the double standard in U.S. politics toward human rights when he condemned President Ford’s ratification of the Helsinki Accords on August 1, 1975. Reagan believed that it did nothing stop the human rights abuses of the USSR or commit the Soviets to honour their promises. 

Finally, President Reagan had a gift of perception. He understood the precarious nature of the world he lived in and understood the true danger if the West continued in decline whilst the East and Soviet Union grew in influence and strength. He was an adamant believer in the “domino theory” and recognized the power that it had in undermining Western interests and values. He frequently used the correlation of Chamberlain and Hitler to show the necessity of why the U.S. had to continue to support allies and stand in solidarity against communism. His perception was also reaffirmed in his great judge of character. Upon meeting Lady Thatcher for the first time he remarked that “he couldn’t be happier with England’s new prime minister, if anyone can remind England of the greatness she knew it will be the Prime Minister England had nicknamed Maggie.” There is no hesitation that she felt the same way as she strongly supported the “special-relationship” and her friend Ronnie whom she worked with closely and enacted decisions that changed the course of history forever.

I am sure by this point many people reading this will either be incredibly cynical or perhaps think I am just a naive American who has nostalgia for a time and place that is over and isn’t coming back. However, I believe President Reagan’s legacy will live on for generations to come because of his resolute principles and beliefs. It is because of Reagan’s values that celebrations are occurring around the world from Washington to Prague. While I know the 21^st century is a different era and is a century filled with unprecedented challenges and causes for concern, I still believe that President Reagan made the world a better place and ultimately delivered a world dominated by fear and tyranny to a new era of greater liberty and freedom. That is why it is important that my generation, the civilized world, and its leaders must hold to his principles and reject the policies of appeasement and isolationism, which we know from history have been detrimental to the freedom and opportunity that many of us take for granted today. 

With all eyes on Egypt, Herb London looks next door to the growing fragility of the two state solution

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers). 

In a recent discussion of the anticipated Palestinian state Mahmoud Abbas, leader in the territory, said he “would not tolerate one single Jew in his new country, Palestine.” Speaking before journalists in Ramallah, he clearly and unequivocally noted, “We have already said completely openly, and it will stay that way: If there is a Palestinian country with Jerusalem as its capital, we will not accept that even one single Jew will live there.”

Abbas rejected any suggestion that Jews in Judea and Samaria, who have lived in their homes for decades, could remain under Palestinian rule. Meanwhile in all negotiations, the Palestinian position is that “Palestinian refugees” have the right of return to Israel. Therefore, according to the Abbas proposition, Israel should open its borders for Arabs while Palestine closes its borders for Jews.

Here is the unvarnished truth. Arabs can live in Israel as full fledged citizens with all the rights that status confers. They can have their own political parties, settle in their own communities and represent about twenty percent of the total Israeli population. But on the other side of the political ledger not one Jew, including those who reside on the West Bank, can remain once Palestine becomes an independent nation.

What more does one have to know about the Arab mentality? Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. There is and will remain different standards for Arabs and Jews. Hence, what precisely is a two state solution? An Arab state immediately becomes a threat to the very existence of Israel since Jews are recognized as the enemy and, by virtue of law, must be ostracized.

To make matters even more absurd, Abbas is considered an ideological moderate. After all, he doesn’t call for killing Jews, only for a form of apartheid, of absolute separation. Should such a Palestinian nation be created, how long would it take for open hostilities between the two states to break out? Can an Israeli government that encouraged its citizens to move into the West Bank after the culmination of the 1967 war, now tell these residents that they must depart? Is the government prepared to extricate 250,000 people from this region?

These questions, and a host of others, will have to be addressed to meet the demands of a two state solution. But even more fundamental is the attitude of the Palestinians themselves. If Jews aren’t permitted there, then presumably Jewish tourist dollars and investment capital are not welcome either. Where does one draw the line?

Clearly modesty is in order. If Abbas didn’t have to mollify radical sentiment in the West Bank, these unmistakably racist comments would be an embarrassment and uttered only in private, if then. But his are the views of a radical sensing that the tide of world opinion is with him. Alas, he may be right since condemnation from the media elite over his forthright apartheid stance has not been forthcoming.

If this Palestinian state is created, Israelis should not have any illusions about what it will mean. Further isolation, increased hostility, border tension and suicide bombers are all in the cards. In fact, the deck is stacked against Israel and Abbas has made that fact patently clear.