Back in the 1970s and ’80s, TV news was a serious business, and companies spent big money sending reporters around the globe to cover important stories. As a national correspondent for ABC News and, later, for Inside Edition, I traveled the world reporting all kinds of situations, including combat and intense political conflict. I have visited seventy-five countries and earned two master’s degrees: one from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the other from Boston University’s School of Communication. In addition, I spent my third year in college studying at the University of London in a third-year-abroad program. So which younger journalist is going to compete with that? You tell me.
These days, TV news outfits outsource just about everything. No longer is a Bill O’Reilly sent to Argentina to cover the Falkland Islands war. Now some guy named José from Buenos Aires will file the information. José is a lot cheaper, and that’s primarily what news organizations care about these days.
Also, the decline of the disciplines of history and geography in America’s public schools is shocking. Young journalists today often lack any knowledge of what happened before they showed up on the planet. Go out to the mall and ask some kid where Bangladesh is. Then ask the youth to name one Supreme Court justice. Try it.
So if you think about it, I’m pretty lucky. My competition for the anchor seat on the Factor is slim. The old adage says, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” The rise of the machines is creating far more Pinheads than Patriots and is eroding the traditional skills needed to succeed in the communications industry. The strong will always survive, and if you are dependent on machines, rather than on your God-given abilities, you will not be strong. I suffered while building my frame of reference and experience file, but it is now rock solid. No machine is going to beat me in a debate.
In the future, a few citizens will dominate the many in America. Knowledge will be power, escapism will be weakness. Our society is indeed changing. All you can do is ride with it while sticking to your traditional disciplines. You’ll win with those.
JELLY BEANS, PEANUTS, AND HUMBLE PIE
In December 2009 the Pew Research Center did a survey finding that Americans rated the first decade of the twenty-first century the worst in fifty years. Curiously, those polled rated the 1980s the best modern decade. Ronald Reagan presided in the White House for most of the ’80s. More on that in a moment.
In addition to the Pew information, an ABC News poll found that a whopping 61 percent of Americans believe that the United States is in a long-term decline. To me, that proves that most of us are uneasy about the great changes taking place in America and around the world. We are not confident that the new age will help us very much or result in a more prosperous environment. We are concerned about our place in a changing America.
President Reagan succeeded in the 1980s because he successfully sold the vision of a strong, traditional America. He exuded confidence as he put forth that we are a noble nation whose blood and sacrifice have greatly benefited the world. Mr. Reagan was not a big details man while in the Oval Office. Rather, he was a symbol of America’s strength and basic goodness. The bright, shining city on the hill image incisively defines the Reagan era.
Many liberal Americans despised President Reagan and still do. They claim that he ignored the poor and catered to the moneyed interests. They contend that his opposition to abortion demeaned women, while his intense dislike of runaway entitlement spending hurt the poor. That’s the point here: Reagan’s belief system is in sharp contrast with the policies of Barack Obama, and now the late President is used as a contrast magnet. Are you a Reagan person or an Obama person? And here is where America must make a major decision: go back to tradition in the Reagan mold, or continue with progressive change under the Obama banner.
Reagan versus Obama. That’s what the next presidential election will likely be about. We just don’t know who will be playing Reagan.
Former President Ronald Reagan will always be a true Patriot in my mind.
Reagan Library
Can you imagine the newly elected Ron going to Cairo and telling the Muslim world that the USA had exploited them in the past? Can you imagine that? Even though America has exploited the Arab world at times, it has also greatly helped those politically challenged nations. Reagan would have trumpeted our largesse and avoided the mea culpas.
President Obama obviously sees it differently. He believes that a humble America will emerge as more powerful in world opinion than an arrogant America (Obama has branded the Bush administration as chief culprit in the hubris department). Mr. Obama’s conciliatory demeanor abroad has played well with the liberal press, but back home the folks are becoming increasingly skeptical, especially when they hear statements like this:
The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.
Ronald Reagan would have shuddered and said something like, “There you go again,” the famous refrain from his presidential debate with Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, President Obama has misread history. The primary oppressors of Muslims have been other Muslims. Few democratic states exist in the Islamic world. In fact, most are brutal totalitarian regimes where women are repressed and non-Muslims are persecuted. It’s difficult to see what colonialism had to do with these cultural atrocities. Besides, the USA has never been involved with colonial activities in the Muslim world. With respect, Mr. Obama was talking through his hat in Cairo!
If you understand America, you know that most Americans sincerely believe that their country is a force for good in the world. And you know what? It is. I’ve seen it time and time again. For all his unilateral bluster, President Bush saved millions of lives in Africa by financing a number of AIDS and malaria projects. Because of the tens of millions of dollars he spent on those programs, compliments of the American taxpayer, many human beings are alive today. That’s just one small example of what the USA routinely practices all around the world. Whenever disaster hits, we as individuals and as a nation are the most generous responders. Just ask the Haitians.
So President Obama risks damage to his image when he runs down the USA. He is far too smart a man not to understand historical reality. I can only assume that portraying America in a more humble way overseas is a strategy on his part. It is the only thing I can think of that would drive such rhetoric. Whatever his motivation, it is a Pinhead move.
Psychoanalyzing anyone is a waste of time, so I will pose just one more question about Barack Obama’s personal worldview. Speaking at a press conference in April 2010, he told the world that, “like it or not,” America is a superpower. Some liberals I know don’t like it. They see the USA as a bully. But I agree with many of our fellow citizens that America’s superpower status is often a force for good. Our military and humanitarian strength has brought relief to millions. Every tyrant in the world fears us. After every disaster, Americans are on the ground, helping out. We are an overwhelmingly positive presence in this world because we have the money and power to impose justice and to finance charity.
Portugal is a nice country; can they do that?
And if the United States does not right wrongs, who will? China? Russia? Uganda?
The question then becomes this: Is President Obama comfortable in his role as the most powerful person in the world? After closely observing him, I believe that he likes personal power, but is a bit uneasy with macro-power. I could be wrong on this.
Although younger Americans are not as emotional about their country as previous generations, most of us still admire a strong leader who talks up the USA. Ronald Reagan was a genius at it. Barack Obama has not yet embraced the concept. But why not?
The reason, I think, is that the President believes Am
erica is fundamentally flawed, and that we need to be more progressive in our outlook to create a more just society. Right now, the evidence suggests that Mr. Obama’s “change you can believe in” mantra is being driven by his core belief that our system isn’t fair because it is stacked against the poor and disadvantaged. Therefore, the President wants to expand government power in order to provide folks with what they need: health care, fewer carbon fuels, and a more diverse economy that shares wealth.
In addition, Barack Obama is an internationalist, which means he believes America does not have an “exceptional” place in the world. He wants the United States to be humble on the international front, and if that means overemphasizing his country’s mistakes, so be it.
The Reagan vision, of course, was the exact opposite: smaller government, lower federal taxes, expanded opportunities for the private marketplace in order to drive job creation in the private sector. President Reagan believed in the “trickle-down theory”—that is, if corporate America is doing well, the workingman and -woman will benefit by more employment opportunities and increased salaries produced by competition.
Also, Mr. Reagan believed, like his acolytes today (e.g., Dick Cheney), that the United States has an obligation to lead the world toward more freedom. In the eyes of conservatives, we are not one nation among many—we are the righteous world leader.
But as President Obama implied in that April press conference, being a superpower means we get dragged into everybody else’s problems. That can be very painful, as we found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Some conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, believe it is insane to be the world’s beat cop.
Today in America, progressives are center stage, and they tend to focus on “social justice,” not international justice. The massive domestic spending embraced by the Obama administration in pursuit of helping less affluent Americans has created fear in the financial community. Like ultraliberal California, the USA could go bankrupt if entitlement spending continues to expand. And the folks sense it.
It would be easy to write that Ronald Reagan was a Patriot and Barack Obama is a Pinhead. That, however, would be a pure ideological opinion because the data is not yet complete. President Obama’s mandate for progressive change is not going well, but as history demonstrates, things can change fast.
So let’s say something more nuanced: both Obama and Reagan can be considered Patriots for their public service alone. Also, President Reagan’s accomplishments put him firmly in Patriot territory, while President Obama’s achievements, so far, cannot be defined. It’s simply too early in his term. But, no question, Mr. Obama has already entered the land of the Pinhead on a few occasions, and the health care deal is a huge gamble with the country’s future. Patriotic Americans have a right to be extremely skeptical about the President’s overall vision for America. That being said, true Patriots are always fair-minded and should give the President a case-by-case hearing. When things don’t add up, like the exploding budget deficit, let him know it. That’s what the Tea Party movement is all about.
But when Americans see the President’s policy of attacking the al-Qaeda leadership with drone-driven missiles working very well, we should also acknowledge that.
It is true, however, that there comes a time when an overall assessment has to be made of a leader. That day of reckoning may spell very bad news for Barack Obama. Because so many of his policies have been Far Left leaning, he is close to the point of no return unless the economy begins to soar.
Because America remains a Center-Right country, I will make this prediction: if President Obama does not move rightward toward the center, there will be trouble ahead for him on a number of fronts. We are living in a dangerous time. Outwitting our enemies will take strength and smarts. President Obama is smart, but is he tough enough to defeat evil? Will the Chicago community organizer be able to set aside his liberal inclinations and do what is necessary both to protect America and also put it back on solid financial footing? These are the vital questions.
Historically, liberal policies have not led to financial discipline nor have they instilled fear in belligerent tyrants. I guess there is always a first time, but you might be a Pinhead to bet on it. Come back to the traditional center way of governing, Mr. President, or risk being a one-term guy. Already, some are saying that the Democratic Party is self-destructing, even as it should be enjoying the apex of its power. New York Times columnist David Brooks put it this way:
The [Democratic Party] is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates….
We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march but already there have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package…[that] Congressional Democrats used as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of pet programs with borrowed money….
Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019.
Finally, there is health care…. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation…. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones.
Although Mr. Brooks is a moderate (conservative by the über-liberal Times standards), he is obviously chiding the Democratic congressional leadership for being too liberal and out of touch with the folks. The American people, however, are not likely to make a distinction between the White House and Congress. The huge debt run-up, the health care fiasco, and the dubious war on terror strategy are happening on Obama’s watch. He will be held responsible if things go south, no matter how much of the chaos was caused by the fools on Capitol Hill. If the President does not want to be infected by the Pinhead contagion that is now rampant in Washington, he must begin to take a few non–Far Left positions on vital issues. If he doesn’t, the strong current of voter disenchantment will eventually send him floating off into the sunset.
Just ask Jimmy Carter.
CHAPTER 5
The Boston Massacre
THE STORM CLOUD HOVERING over President Obama in late 2009 was nothing compared to what arrived early the next year. The pounding he took on Tuesday, January 19, 2010, should have given him brain freeze. On that blustery day in Massachusetts, some of the most liberal voters in the country elected a Republican to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the Senate. It was absolutely astonishing.
You know the story. Democrat Martha Coakley was ahead by 30 points in the polls after she won the primary. But as events unfolded in the autumn of ’09, things began to totter, and four days before the vote, Ms. Coakley found herself behind in a Suffolk University poll. By the way, the extremely liberal Boston Globe ignored the stunning poll upon its release. And the Globe wonders why it’s going bankrupt.
With Coakley’s support cracking, a dramatic call was made to the bullpen. Look up in the sky—it’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s AIR FORCE ONE! Two days before the vote, the Eagle had landed in Boston; President Obama had arrived to save Martha Coakley.
Only he didn’t.
Republican state senator Scott Brown defeated Coakley by 100,000 votes. For the first time in almost fifty years, Massachusetts had elected a GOPer to the Senate. And not just any Republican. Brown said flat out that he would try to block ObamaCare if elected, and that he would oppose almost all the President’s big-spending policies. In other words, Brown didn’t run against Ms. Coakley; he ran against Obama.
Hot off the presses! Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) holds up a Boston Herald newspaper announcing his historic victory in Massachusetts.
Associated Press/AP
Photographed by Elise Amendola, File
Days after the shocking vote, Time magazine put Barack Obama on its cover with the headline: NOW WHAT?
Good question.
Some partisan Pinheads on cable TV attacked Scott Brown by calling him vile names and smearing those who voted for him even though many of them had supported Barack Obama for Presid
ent just a few months prior. The reaction to Brown’s victory by some on the Far Left was downright ugly. It makes one wonder whether these people are simply damaged emotionally. The voters of Massachusetts were clearly sending a message to the rest of the country. By insulting that message, the radical Left just made more enemies, as if they don’t already have enough. We’re not talking about shooting yourself in the foot here, radical Left people; we’re talking about blowing your brains out.
But let’s return to the real world and leave Far Left loon land behind. What exactly was the Bay State message, anyway?
Actually, it was quite Patriotic in the great tradition of Massachusetts. I believe that most Americans, including many liberals, do not trust the federal government. I mean, we have to put up with it because that’s our system, but do you really think the giant, chaotic apparatus in Washington can bring success and happiness to your life? Anyone who believes that should travel to Havana, Cuba, and take a look around.
No, most Americans want to pursue happiness without Uncle Sam making things more difficult for them. And in the beginning of 2010, that was exactly what the federal government was doing: making things worse for hardworking Americans. Only Far Left, Kool-Aid-drinking Pinheads failed to notice.
MEDIC ALERT
The economy was the best example. With unemployment at 10 percent and workers insecure almost everywhere, the folks were in no mood for the vast expansion of the federal government. To be fair, the bad economy was not Barack Obama’s fault, and not even Moses could have healed the economic breach in a year. But the President insisted on spending incredible amounts of taxpayer money to prop up failing companies and state governments and had little to show for it. The voters in Massachusetts clearly noticed.
Pinheads and Patriots Page 8
