Man And His Symbols

There was an article the other day in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution in which the local head of the NAACP called for the removal of all confederate symbols and remnants from Stone Mountain. For those of you who do not know, Stone Mountain is a large granite mountain just outside of Atlanta. Among those things to be struck off, the NAACP would have us remove the images of three confederate generals atop their horses, which are carved into the face of the mountain.  

Atlanta is a unique place. Not only was it the birthplace of Martin Luther King, but it was also the place in which Margret Mitchell wrote Gone with the Wind. It was the site of many of the fiercest battles of the Civil War, and there are monuments and plaques commemorating those battles throughout the metropolitan area. Stone Mountain Park is one of those places, and every summer, thousands of visitors tour the park. They learn a little about Civil War history along the way. But in the current climate, it appears anything confederate must go. So the images of proud confederate generals riding into battle must be purged from our state and national parks, along with the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

There is no doubt that symbols are important. They convey the establishment of an ideology. A cross, for example, standing on top of a hill, conveys the message that Christians are welcome there. An American flag on the back of a pickup truck conveys patriotism. The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, also known as the Confederate Flag, conveys different things to different people. That was the flag flown during an untold number of civil rights atrocities. It was the flag flown at Klan rallies and in defiance of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That flag has a violent history, both as a battle flag during the civil war and also during reconstruction, but that violent history does not necessarily define the symbol.

It was the American flag that flew as General Sherman exterminated the Native Americans in the war to conquer the west. The American flag flew over Japanese internment camps during World War II. The American flag flew as the atomic bomb was dropped on civilians, as Tokyo and Berlin were firebombed, and as villages were relocated in Vietnam. We do not, however, remove the American flag from our capitals or our pick up trucks. Why? Because the flag is a representation of who we are, both good and bad. One can be a patriot and still acknowledge that the American flag flew over historical events that have been characterized by many as atrocities. We guard our symbols because they convey our history.

President Obama was going to be transformative. He was going to heal the racial wounds in our society, and bring people of all colors together. Instead, his Justice Department has been racially divisive, and the President himself stumbles into difficult situations and makes them worse with racially charged rhetoric. President Obama has failed African Americans as a leader. African Americans are even more impoverished than they were when he took office. Race riots are worse. Incidents of police brutality are perceived by the African American community to be on the rise. Having failed to address the core issues underlying racial tensions, having squandered the opportunity to bring real change and power to the African American community, all that is left is to tear down the symbols. 

It is a sad truth that the civil rights movement in this country has been reduced to removing flags and destroying monuments in state parks. The phrase "Black Lives Matter" demonstrates the inertia the movement faces. The reduction of civil rights to a statement of the obvious is telling. The opportunity for real change was lost, and some must find symbolic victories to justify the emotional energy and trust placed in President Obama.

So tear down the symbols. Rewrite the history. Replace the faces on our money. Purge the South of any remnant of its conflicted past. Ignore any part of the history of the Confederacy, beyond slavery. Stamp out any remaining notion that the South has any right to quiet rebellion against a big northern government with little use for a few rednecks. As the symbolic victories mount, however, the chance for real victories diminishes even further. Symbolic victories are always expensive, they accomplish little, and they almost always come at the sacrfice of other objectives. Real change doesn't come from pealing flags off the bumpers of cars. It comes from signficiant disussion and compromise. Real change is never as easy as tearing up a granite mountain.  

Obama Confirms His Place In History As The First Adolescent President

Shortly before the Fourth of July, President Obama gave a speech to students and faculty at the University of Wisconsin. In it he said of the Republican Party:

"And I want to emphasize -- I know some of them well. They’re good people. It’s just their ideas are bad. (Laughter and applause.) And I want to emphasize that. We’re one country, we’re all on one team, and so we’re all one American family. But we all go -- we're at Thanksgiving and Uncle Harry starts saying something and -- (laughter) -- you say, “Uncle Harry, that makes no sense at all.” You still love him. (Laughter.) He’s still a member of your family. Right? But you’ve got to correct him. You don’t want to put him in charge of stuff. (Laughter and applause.) That’s all I'm saying. (Applause.)"

President Obama's "Uncle Harry" remark was taken by some to be offensive, or containing racial overtones. The old, white, senile uncle just can't get it right and has to be "corrected" by his young relative. Personally, I didn't find this remark to be racially offensive. Nor do I believe that President Obama intended to convey any offense of any kind. After all, President Obama is mostly white, was raised by his white grandparents, and probably did have to suffer through Thanksgivings as a young man with old, white, misguided Uncle Harry.

His remark was arrogant, however, and demonstrates a stunning lack of perspective. Apart from feeling the need to "correct" those with whom he disagrees, the President also discounts entirely any contribution old Uncle Harry may have to the conversation. Old Uncle Harry may be a little off his game now, but he was a veteran of two wars, witnessed the rise and fall of tyrannical regimes, lived through Watergate and lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Old Uncle Harry held down jobs during good and bad economies. He lived through 90% tax margins in the 60's, Stagflation in the 70's, the economic boom of the 80's and 90's, and the collapse of 2008. When Uncle Harry was a boy, his Uncle used to tell stories about the Great Depression and total loss. Around Uncle Harry's dinner table as a boy, his relatives discussed the New Deal, the TVA projects and World War II. Their first person accounts of those events left an impression on young Uncle Harry. One that he took with him for the rest of his life.

A generation later, Uncle Harry sits across from young President Obama at the dinner table at Thanksgiving. He watches the President snicker at him, roll his eyes at him. He patiently listens as young President Obama pronounces the truth of all things to the table of diners. Then, after listening patiently, he offers his opinion. Uncle Harry's opinion is perhaps inarticulate. He perhaps says it slowly. But, his opinion is based on a lifetime of actual experience, beyond what he read in books as a school boy. Obama winces as he hears Uncle Harry's remarks, and eagerly steps in, like any other omniscient teenager, to "correct" the older man. Because he is still just a boy, the older, wiser Uncle Harry chooses not to humiliate Obama with any further debate at the table. "He will learn, eventually," Uncle Harry says to himself.

Unfortunately, President Obama never learned. This morning, he has inked a deal with Iran, the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, ensuring that they will obtain nuclear weapons in the next 20 years. Uncle Harry would never have signed such a deal. There are only modest restraints on Iran's ability to develop delivery systems. The restraints on Iran's ability to enrich nuclear materials appear reasonable, but the inspections regime is inherently flawed. In order to have any inspection of an Iranian facility suspected of manufacturing nuclear weapons, the world must give Iran 14 days notice. Then, Iran may reject the request, at which time the world has 10 days to make a counterproposal. In other words, Iran gets 24 days to move all of its weaponry out of one facility to another during the delay. Only a child would make such a deal.

President Obama was devoured in negotiations by a number of older, much crazier Uncle Harrys. Uncle Harry might ruin Thanksgiving with talk of lowering taxes or doing away with entitlements, but the President's new Iranian Uncles ruin all holiday meals with a "Death to America" chant during grace. And let us not forget the most important failure of this deal: Iran is legally allowed to enrich Uranium at the end of a 15 year period. They will have the bomb.

And what will old, crazy Uncle Ali do with those weapons? He's already told us, while sitting across the table from the President's representatives. Death to America. Death to Israel. Down with the Great Satan.

The Absolute Right Of Conscience

Nothing infuriates an American more than being told what he or she is allowed to think or feel. The unfortunate truth is that this sentiment is ignored more often than it is followed by our politicians and political leaders. Civil debate is often drowned by a cacophony of voices, all attempting in one sound bite or another to tell us that we are bigots if we think this, or stupid if we think that. The free exchange of ideas has been replaced by the notion that some ideas are too "offensive" or "outside the mainstream" to be exchanged. If you believe "X," for example, you shouldn't have a voice. You should be shouted down, shamed, ridiculed and made to shut up. It is a sorry development, and its proponents lack historical perspective. It is neither progressive, nor does it indicate progress as a nation. In fact, quite the opposite is true, and more often than not, being called a bigot or stupid tends to make one fight harder. It does not end the debate.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, social media has erupted in a torrent of decidedly uncivil discourse. Any one of us would be hard pressed to look at his or her Facebook page (although I seem to be the exception) and not see a wall filled with "gays vs. bigots" posts. The issue would seem so black and white. On one side, you have the "hate filled bigots" who are accused of wanting nothing short of a deprivation of all rights for homosexuals. On the other, you have a complete insistence that the total collapse of morality in America is at hand. Most Americans, somewhere in the middle, will tolerate the proverbial bomb-throwing while the initial emotions associated with the issue slowly subside. And they will subside. What Americans will not tolerate, however, is being told what to think.

Justice Alito's dissent touched on this issue:

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools,” he wrote. “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

Justice Alito's concerns, however, have not been borne out by history. For example, decades after Roe v. Wade, Americans still vigorously and publicly debate the morality of abortion. It is a principal issue in every election and, most importantly, polls have been trending against abortion since the decision. Abortion, as a popular individual rights issue, peaked with that decision and has been waning ever since. The discussion now trends more towards the limits or the rights of the unborn, an analysis avoided in the original decision. There have been few if any restrictions on the rights of Americans to publicly object to the practice or demonstrate in opposition. Churches are not yet being forced to perform abortions or pay for abortions. Public funding for abortions has been limited. In short, the debate is alive and well and no one has been relegated to "whisper[ing] their thoughts in the recesses of their homes," unless they choose to do so.

Another example is the debate over the Confederate Flag. To some, it is a symbol of hatred and racism. To others, it is a symbol of Southern heritage. To most, it's just a flag some folks put on their trucks or their hats or that may show up at a NASCAR race or in a fraternity house. The supporters of the flag are labeled "bigots" by the opponents of the flag, but that hasn't stopped a vigorous debate. You can find good, well thought out opinions on both sides. You will find rallies from advocates on both sides. It is generally accepted that people are entitled to their views, without regard to the liberal bomb-throwers or conservative firebrands. The debate will continue until there is a consensus, but even then, every American will have a right to his or her point of view and to express that view in public.

That said, being entitled to publicly express your view on any issue is not the same thing as having your view accepted by the majority. There is no entitlement to that. So, for example, if you despise Black people, you probably are not going to receive a warm welcome when you express that view in public. Justice Alito may be correct in his analysis, but only to the extent that the public at large decides that supporting traditional marriage is bigoted behavior. Unless or until that happens, it is doubtful that the moral issue has been settled by this single Supreme Court decision.

The debate is not over and, if anything, it has become more intense. It will be played out in state legislatures, elections and courts for a long time to come. The Supreme Court will also have a role to play. It will have to determine the extent to which the law will elevate gay rights above the right of Americans to object based on conscience. As I wrote yesterday, the gay marriage decision is unremarkable. It did little more than restate the fundamental principal that all Americans, including gay Americans, are entitled to equal protection under the law. And as an aside, to my conservative friends I say this: The government should never have been in the business of marriage. There are laws governing sexual behavior, like age of consent, marriage of relatives, rape, incest, and the like. But those issues are fundamentally different from marriage between two consenting adults. Outside of the health and safety context, it just isn't the government's business to say who can marry and who can't, and the laws passed for that purpose invited the Court's intervention. 

What may be remarkable is what comes next. Will the wedding cake maker or the photographer be compelled, against his or her conscience, to provide services to gay couples? In the states that have considered that issue, the answer has so far been yes. Of course, that issue hasn't been addressed by the courts in Georgia, Texas and Mississippi. Something tells me that the answer will be quite different and it will not take long for the Supreme Court to once again have to intervene. Most Constitutional scholars seem to agree that the Court will not compel anyone to provide services against their will. That would violate both the First and Thirteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Using state power to levy a fine against an objector is "compulsion" (in case you were wondering). 

Admittedly, nothing is certain. Perhaps the Supreme Court will rule the way those state courts did. What is certain is this, Americans will demand to be allowed to exercise their consciences. If the Court holds otherwise, it would be truly remarkable, and would do nothing more than rally even neutral Americans to the traditional marriage cause. 

What it will not do is end the debate.

Two Unremarkable Decisions From The Supreme Court

The dust is beginning to settle, and some of the emotion stemming from the Supreme Court's decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage is beginning to wane. There is no doubt that both issues have been hard fought and are deeply divisive in our nation. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature legislation, was passed without any support from Republicans and in spite of the mountain of polling showing that Americans did not want the law. The Democrats didn't care. They were going to create their new entitlement no matter what. For the first time in 50 years, they finally had the opportunity and just enough support to set up the framework under which American medicine will become socialized. All liberal fantasies are being fulfilled. Government bureaucrats (that they appoint) will control one seventh of the nation's economy. Liberals will have another powerful entitlement to use to win elections. The law has already cost companies, patients, and doctors a fortune to implement, and is less popular than ever.

But none of that is the Supreme Court's fault. As Justice Roberts said in his first Obamacare opinion: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Elections have consequences, as the President is so fond of saying. Justice Roberts, of course, is both right and wrong in his statement. No one disputes that the Supreme Court should, in theory, exercise restraint when reviewing most legislation. Obamacare was lawfully passed and signed into law by the President. That is how our system works. Theoretically, the Supreme Court should review that law for Constitutionality only, and then move on. That is precisely what they did in both Obamacare decisions. If you don't like the result, don't vote for Democrats. At the end of the day, President Obama campaigned on Obamacare, promised radical changes to our health system and won two elections. The American people chose the conditions under which Obamacare could pass.

At the same time, Justice Robert's statement is woefully inaccurate. It is, in fact, the principal role of the Supreme Court to protect the American public from the consequences of their political choices when those political choices violate the Constitution. In fact, when first created, that was the Court's only job. The concept of "Judicial Review," didn't develop until Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803. Before that time, the Supreme Court was the Constitutionally appointed firewall against fascism, radical ideology, and the tyranny of the majority. His statement to the contrary was unnecessary and will be viewed as an unfair swipe at the opponents of Obamacare. Justice Roberts further divided the country, and made the Court look politicized. A politicized Court is a Court without credibility. Having no army with which to enforce their rulings, the Court's credibility is its only weapon. The Court got the decision generally right, but at great cost to its prestige.

In Obamacare II, Justice Roberts again led the majority to uphold the law. He and the Court have been savaged by conservatives for "saving Obamacare" and "rewriting the legislation." These criticisms are misplaced. The Court applied the principal rule of statutory construction to Obamacare: "Where possible, interpret the law in a way that upholds it." The reason that is the principal rule of construction is because the alternative would leave the Court with far too much power. Imagine a world in which a Court could strike down any law because of a misplaced word, or a single incongruent statement in a 20,000 page bill. There would be no predictability in the law. Businesses and individuals would have no idea whether a law will be upheld or stricken on the basis of some confusing language. Every time Congress acted, implementation would have to be delayed for years while the Supreme Court reviewed the law.

To ask the Court to construe Obamacare in a way that would have destroyed it is to ask the Court to violate that most basic tenet of judicial review. The Court applied another fundamental tenet of judicial review when it looked to "legislative intent" to find the language to uphold the law. Again, this is unremarkable. For centuries, here and in other democracies around the world, courts look to the legislative record to determine what the legislature meant, within some margin of error. While I agree that the Court stretched to "rewrite" the language in the statute, that is more a reflection on the legislators enacting a poorly drafted law than it is the Supreme Court.

Fast forward two days. Justice Roberts dissented from the Court's decision on gay marriage. Gay marriage is another tough issue that deeply divides the nation. Unlike Obamacare, however, most Americans actually support the legalization of gay marriage. Regardless of any religious views, it is a fact that homosexuality is as old as the world itself. So is traditional marriage. This is not some new development in the world. For example, our founding fathers undoubtedly knew that the Greeks were practicing homosexuals when they began borrowing ideas on democracy. It did not stop our founders from embracing those ideas, along with much of the architecture and rhetoric used by a society that not only tolerated homosexuality but often encouraged it. 

Still, gay marriage represents a shift in American morality for which a large minority of Americans are not ready. The debate had been on-going and opinions were being slowly changed. The democratic process was working, and homosexuals were making progress on their issue. The Supreme Court stepped in and, in the words of one of my favorite columnists, "short-circuited the process." Critics argue that the Court should have allowed the democratic process to work, and that it was supremely arrogant for the Court to intervene. Neither argument is compelling.

The basis for the Court's ruling is the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment is: 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment is very broad. It protects "any person" from the denial of life, liberty or property without due process. It also provides "any person" with "equal protection" under the law. "Any person" includes homosexuals. "The law" includes the marriage laws in this country. It is that simple.

This is not to say that these rights cannot be limited. Legislators may pass laws regulating marriage and even depriving two people of the right to marry, provided there is a compelling reason to do so. So, for example, prohibiting incestuous marriage has been upheld because, among other things, there is a high risk of birth defects. That reason is compelling. For decades, however, courts and legislatures have struggled to articulate any compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage. 

Opponents, of course, point to their religious beliefs. Homosexuality, they say, is condemned in the Bible and is otherwise immoral. They point to the moral decay in our society, and the decline of stable family environments. But that's where the First Amendment comes into play: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the first clause that is at issue here. For the state to use the rule of law to impose the religious beliefs of one group or another on the rest of society is a direct violation of the Constitution. Gay marriage cannot be prohibited on that basis, especially where religious groups are themselves divided on the issue.

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down laws that discriminate against a specific group of people should come as no surprise. The only question the Court had to answer is whether homosexuality is a behavior or a trait. If it's a behavior, that is, if it's not inherent, then it may not be entitled to the same protections. On the other hand, if it's an inherent trait, like having black skin, then the right to equal protection is undeniable. The Court obviously believes that it is a trait, making the rest of its analysis simple.

Regardless of how you feel about these two Supreme Court decisions, the outcomes were inevitable. That said, the victory laps being taken by the White House and others serve only to deepen the divide. The right to dissent must also be vigorously protected, including the rights of the dissenters to exercise their conscience. We should all be careful in our rhetoric not to contribute to the poisonous environment surrounding these issues. 

We should also be careful not to let these divisions dictate our policy or distract us from the other problems we face. I do wonder, for example, what Vladimir Putin thought of the rainbow White House. As we scrutinize our democracy, we should remain mindful of our uniqueness. In the Middle East, for example, homosexuals are being tortured and thrown from buildings. Christians are being crucified. Jews are being targeted for extermination. Whatever oppression or disappointment any American may feel, it pales in comparison to the oppression and disappointment felt by many others in the world. 

Finally, let us also remember the stern admonitions from Justice Roberts and President Obama that elections have consequences. We are not oppressed, and we have the absolute right to change our government. We should take advantage of it.

Boots On The Ground

The fight against ISIS has already drawn us into another quagmire in the Middle East. About a year ago, the United States commenced airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. Almost everyone, myself included, warned that airstrikes alone would not defeat ISIS or cause any meaningful change in the region. (http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/08/airstrikes-will-not-change-fate-of-iraq.html).

The inevitable failure of the "airstrikes only" policy divided strategists. One side wanted an expanded war against ISIS, while others preferred to sit back and let them kill each other. For the hawks, promoting airstrikes was just a way to get the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak. Once U.S. airpower had failed to stop ISIS, the hawks knew they could make a stronger argument for a larger war. To that end, they lobbied for airstrikes in every possible forum. When challenged on the Sunday talk shows with the long list of failed interventions in the region, they promised that there would be "no boots on the ground." 

It was a lie from the very beginning. Of course there were eventually going to be "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria. No nation can effectively wage a war otherwise, and the eventual creep towards full-scale invasion began the moment the first bomb was dropped on an ISIS target.

(http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-defeating-isis-may-not-be-in-our.html). 

Now, a year later, Obama is sending another 500 "advisors" to Iraq. As an aside, it is remarkable to me that our leaders cannot resist using the same euphemistic terms to explain failed policies. 500 "advisors" started the Vietnam War, for example. You'd think that someone in the White House knows enough history to suggest a different term. Nevertheless, we now have "boots on the ground." Next stop: Invasion.

Regardless of what they say, this is the inevitable next step, and they know it. Americans would do well to keep in mind the promise of "no boots on the ground" as every hawk now proclaims, "no one is talking about reinvading Iraq." These soft denials are designed to reassure the American people that our leadership won't actually invade the Middle East again. These denials ring hollow, however, given the long history of mission creep in the region.

The fact of the matter is, 500 American soldiers will be nothing but targets. They will not bring peace to the Middle East. They will not suddenly teach the Iraqi army how to fight ISIS. These American troops will not suddenly improve the effectiveness of American airstrikes. They will not improve  Iraqi equipment or better feed the Iraqi army. They will not win any hearts and minds.

What they will do is act as a magnet. Beyond attracting fire from ISIS, they will also draw our nation into another large scale war in Iraq. I suspect that, like the other wars in that region, this one will take another decade, cost even more money than the first two, achieve little, and end in another precipitous withdrawal. Rinse, wash, repeat.

If we wanted to defeat ISIS, we could do it in three weeks. But that's not the issue. The problem is that for each ISIS or Al Qaeda, or al Sadr that we defeat, another one rises to take his place in the pantheon of enemies whose hearts were not won with Coca Cola and chocolate. The only way to defeat this enemy is to occupy the region after major combat operations have ended for as long as it takes to change the culture of violence. We must be so committed to staying that, over time, a sense of hopelessness sets in for our enemies. They begin thinking about training the "next generation" of warriors, as they become too old to fight. Then that generation sees the hopelessness of continuing the fight against the occupation. Instead they take advantage, perhaps, of the infrastructure and stability the west does bring - education, stable commerce, security, western goods. Only then will we finally be rid of ISIS, Al Qaeda and the rest of this Middle Eastern death cult.

At the end of the day, hearts and minds are not "won" in conflict zones. Armies and their warlike ideologies are conquered. Only then can the enemy see the futility of continuing the fight and the benefits of peace. Unfortunately, in the present conflict "no one is talking about" using a force large enough and leaving it behind long enough to truly change the course of history. That being the case, we should just stay out of it and save ourselves the heartbreak of another generation of casualties and another trillion dollars of debt.

Hope Against Hope

There is a sad irony that the Clinton legacy will likely end in a controversy over their status as "elites." For months now, the Clintons have been defending $750,000.00 speaking fees, secret  email servers, and a charitable foundation that appears to be little more than a well-feathered nest. There once was a time, when her husband was running for Governor of Arkansas, that she routinely, and perhaps even skillfully, rubbed elbows with the working class. Now, a blue collar moment for Mrs. Clinton is a Burrito Bowl at Chipotle, by herself, with only Secret Service around. No one even bothered to tell her that the "working poor," as she refers to them, don't eat at Chipotle, or drink their morning coffee at Starbucks. She now conflates "Yuppie" and "blue collar."

It is a shame. It's a shame because her husband, the man from Hope, Arkansas, had true humble beginnings. Bill Clinton came from a very humble home, the son of an alcoholic father who worked as a traveling salesman. Bill Clinton spent his early years working in a small family grocery store in town. He was in the thicket of segregation and racial divide and saw it first hand. But this store sold to Blacks as well as whites, an uncommon sight in the South in those days.

He went on to educate himself, excelling in school. He earned accolades, was involved in student government, and went on to become a Rhodes Scholar. As a politician, Bill Clinton had the common touch. He ate ribs on picnic benches with regular people and drank sweet tea. Even as President, Clinton could be found in the same places ordinary Americans went, and it was authentic. Unlike Hillary's Burrito Bowl, when Bill Clinton rolled up to the McDonald's, you knew it was because he was still that guy from Hope.  

These days, we are surrounded by politicians who either come from great wealth, or have made careers out of living on the public dime as professional politicians. The vast majority of these men and women have no idea what it is to work in a factory, or have to meet payroll, or struggle to provide for tuition or childcare. They've lost touch with basic American values, like doing your job, sacrifice, overcoming adversity, being a good neighbor, and forging a way ahead for the next generation. Instead, they sell us "new American values," like "paying your fair share," common core, soul crushing debt, and slogans like "you didn't build that." 

And therein lies the problem. These professional politicians fancy themselves the "builders of America." They seek to regulate every aspect of every American life because, after all, the law does not apply to them. They are either so rich or so politically powerful that they cannot be touched. They usurp the mantle of "nation builder" from the factory workers, small business owners, and professionals that constitute the foundation of our society. They take what isn't theirs and pretend to give it to those in need. Instead, like the Clinton  Foundation, they keep 90% of it for themselves and only a pittance actually makes it to the needy.

Hillary Clinton lost her first presidential primary to a man who promised "Hope and Change." She lost because she couldn't convince her party that she was authentic. She was not going to be the engine of change. She was no longer the symbol of "hope," that her husband had once been. Fast forward eight years and things are even worse for her. She has now become truly elite and even the man from Hope can no longer effectively vouch for her. 

With each cringe-worthy appearance at a diner, or a picnic, Hillary Clinton moves the family's legacy further away from Hope. It is not a fitting end, but it is the end the Clinton's chose.

4 Tough Questions Republicans Will Have To Answer To Win The White House

It seems to most observers, Democrats included, that the Republican Party has all the momentum in the 2016 elections. Just yesterday, for example, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that effectively blocks President Obama's attempt at unilaterally implementing immigration reforms. Obamacare is a failure, and our enemies are on the march. The Clinton campaign appears to be in trouble, wrought with scandal, and the Republican field appears strong.  Beneath the shifting tides, however, there is a storm gathering. Republican candidates will have to demonstrate to the American people that they are willing and able to tackle the bigger challenges that lay ahead, not just sit on the sidelines and protest liberal policies. It will start in earnest with the primaries as the field takes shape. Below are four issues Republicans will have to address with detailed planning and a genuine interest in solving the problems.

ISIS

For a year now, Republicans have more or less been able to sit back and criticize the President's Middle Eastern policy, in particular his half-hearted war against ISIS. Republicans have largely gotten away with this because the President's genuine failure in the region has far outweighed the politics of it all. Even though it was President Bush's fault that we went into Iraq, it became President Obama's baby to rock when he decided to precipitously withdraw from the country against the advice of almost everybody in government and the military. 

It is clear, however, that the threat is growing, and whoever becomes the next President will have to have a plan for successfully dealing with it. The fact of the matter is, ISIS has a good chance of winning the war in Iraq and Syria without U.S. intervention. While a strong argument can be made that U.S. intervention is unwarranted, President Obama has forced the issue by putting American prestige and influence on the line with his current policy. If the United States were to abandon the region entirely, and if ISIS were to take Iraq and Syria, it is very likely that our allies in the Middle East would abandon us in kind. That power vacuum will be filled by someone, probably Russia, China or Iran. 

Republicans are no longer able to engage in hypothetical debates about the failure of the President's policies, however. Each candidate will have to announce on the record what he or she would do to stabilize the region, preserve American influence, and avoid a larger war. It is unclear to me how those objectives can be achieved at this point without "boots on the ground" and yet another large-scale war. What is even murkier is how any candidate can win an election in the current climate by espousing war. These are questions that will have to be answered, and so far the candidates have not been pressed.

Immigration

Republicans were given a free pass by President Obama when he decided to use executive power to unilaterally implement sweeping immigration reforms. As I pointed out last year, the President took complete ownership of an issue that has divided Republicans for decades. For those who are interested, you can find the article here. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-good-and-bad-of-president-obamas.html

Now that the President's immigration actions have been halted by the courts, the onus will fall once again on Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, to propose legislation. Likewise, Republican Presidential candidates will have to take a position on immigration, which has been an albatross around the neck of every Republican politician who has tried. Marco Rubio, for example, has had to almost completely repudiate the plan that he proposed 18 months ago in order to have any chance of winning the nomination. It will no longer be enough to simply attack the President for his unilateral actions and the consequences of those actions. The Republicans will have to come up with a plan that has a realistic chance of solving the problem without alienating the base of the party. Again, in an election year, this is going to be a tall order. 

Tax Reform

If there is one thing the rank and file conservatives in this nation have had enough of, it's taxes. All grass-root followers of any wing of the Republican Party have been greatly disappointed in the complete and utter failure of the party to effect any meaningful tax reform. Bush, Sr. raised taxes. The Republican Party took control of the House in 1994 and did almost nothing on taxes. Bush, Jr. got elected and made minor reforms to the code, really only addressing a small part of the problem. This was in spite of the fact that Republicans held both houses of Congress at the time. Republicans are now in control again, and there is no consensus of any kind on tax reform.

Several candidates are recycling some old ideas that never really have gained any traction. Governor Huckabee is for a national sales tax. Several others are for a flat tax. Several are for a reduction in marginal rates. It seems to me that the party as a whole would do better if it agreed on one detailed tax reform proposal and then shopped it to the American people. Whether that be the flat tax or the national sales tax, conflicting messages from candidates and Congressmen will be self-defeating. It's time to pick one plan and run with it on a national level.

Russia

Russia has become a serious world threat. Their nearly $400 billion in military upgrades over the last 6 years far outstrips every nation in the world except the United States, who was engaged in two wars, and China. Russia spent $86.4 billion last year alone, and has roughly doubled their expenditures since invading Ukraine. President Obama's response has been weak and ineffectual to say the least. There really has not been any pause in the fighting, there hasn't been a meaningful cease-fire, and the current "pause" in Russian expansion reflects more of a strategic choice than a concession. 

Like with the ISIS issue, Republicans have so far gotten away with simply attacking President Obama's policies. Several have suggested arming Ukraine. Several have suggested beefing up our NATO presence in the region. Still, no one has articulated a coherent policy or strategy to bring Putin to heel. The mere suggestion of another large European war terrifies most members of the press, who in turn terrify the public. Indeed, a large scale European war would be terrifying. But the quickest route to war is and has always been appeasement. Appeasement encourages bad actors to continue acting badly. It allows rogue nations or rogue leaders the room they need to build their militaries and marshall their forces. It feeds nationalist fervor and silences more moderate voices inside hostile governments. In short, it is a terrible strategy which has proved disastrous throughout history. 

If the Republicans control the Congress and the White House, they will own this problem. If there is something in between appeasement and a renewal of cold war brinkmanship, now is the time to articulate it. So far, the proposals have been modest. Like the other issues, however, it seems nearly impossible to win an election by threatening to heighten tensions with Russia, even if the long term benefit to the world is obvious.