With glum, and, yes, probably tedious, regularity I have re-iterated my forebodings concerning the United States of America. The re-election of Barack Obama, a man who metaphorically sat at the knee of the repulsive Saul Alinsky and practiced what that arch-villain preached, marks, I believe, the end of The Great Republic as a force and an example in the world. Of course, change will not be immediate. The sort of revolution envisaged by Alinsky and his mentor, Gramsci, are not of the French, Russian and Chinese models with mobs of armed revolutionaries roaming the burning streets and slaughtering their enemies. Instead, think of a metastasizing cancer that begins deep in the gut and only gradually appears on the surface at which point all remedies are futile.
So one is entitled to ask where it all began and the death this week of Robert Bork reminds me of an occurrence some 25-0dd years ago which is as good a place to start as any other. Bork, you will recall (if you're old enough!) was a distinguished lawyer armed with a considerable judicial intellect. In 1987 he was chosen by President Reagan to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court and, in due process, was sent before the Senate for ratification. Hitherto, this had been more of a ceremonial than a serious interrogation of a nominee's credentials - but this time it was to be different, very different. This time form and precedent, to say nothing of honesty and courtesy, were smashed to smithereens and it comes as no surprise that the particular vandal who kicked it off was that fat, drunken, lecherous, lying woman-killer, Edward Kennedy, who heaved himself to his feet in the Senate and belched forth this:
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
In its way, it was a malign masterpiece, a perfect example or oratorical legerdemain, it sank to the lowest depths of misrepresentation which would have had (the already dead) Alinsky oozing with pleasure, and the shade of George Orwell holding his head in his hands in despair. It was brilliant, despicable and dishonest filth! But, it was only the overture! There then followed a carefully orchestrated campaign by the Statist elements inside the Democratic party and their lackeys outside in which an honourable man's reputation was trashed and which ended in the humiliation of his rejection by the Senate.
I do realise that I am no expert on American affairs and that it is only relatively recently (thanks to the internet) that I have taken a close interest in them but even so I sense that this was one of the first, if not the first, example of the Statist Left taking direct aim at a target and, by means of a carefully executed plan of disinformation and hysteria, actually destroy it. It set out the ground rules for their conduct ever since and the sustained, vitriolic agit-prop generated by the media during the last election is but one example. What Alinsky and his acolytes, such as B. Obama Esq., have achieved is to infiltrate almost every sector of public life in the USA, including, and especially, those 'free associations' formerly thought to have been entirely a-political, for example, professional and scientific associations, the Academy, the media, neighbourhood communities and so on and on. Today, virtually all of those bodies who go towards making up the warp and woof of American civic society are now under the active influence of Statists, that is, those who believe that only the state may command and control and arbitrate their citizens in every aspect of their existence. Any organisation or traditional life-style which holds out for independence, or even just neutrality, must be destroyed which is why marriage and the family are high on the list of targets and well on the way to destruction. The brave but futile effort of the Tea-Party movement to fight back was well and truly crushed by the combined forces of the Statist movement.
I do realise that some of my readers - not a million miles from 'DM'! - view my love for America as misguided and naive so I would like to stress that I think that in many ways America is like a gorgeous blonde - big, bad, beautiful and dangerous to know! I am well aware that it has a tendency (in which it is far from unique!) of blundering into matters best left alone. It is a rough, raw society in which things done are rarely half done! But there-in lies its attraction - and its danger. At its best, America is indeed a beacon on the hill, a place of infinite possibility for those prepared to work for it and to make use of the liberty usually denied them in their land of origin; at its worst it can crush you! But in that restive, heaving, energetic, cruel and generous society there is hope - provided liberty, in its truest sense, can be maintained. Bork stood for liberty. He was a jurist in support of 'originalist' theory, that is, that as the laws of American change and develop to cope with new situations undreamt of by the Founding Fathers, nevertheless, they must comply with the spirit and letter of the original Constitution. He, and others like him, realised that only the Constitution is the true defender of liberty - and that, of course, is why the Statists, from Obama downwards, are utterly determined to wrench law-making away from under it. If they can, in effect, nullify the Constitution, the keys to the state are theirs - forever!
Statism in north western Europe has been, happily, mostly of the milk-and-water variety not least because we and the Scandinavians in particular have kept our monarchies. This means that prime ministers may come and go but monarchs go on and they provide a second and higher repository for our allegiance and patriotism. Happily, these allegiances are rarely needed but it was interesting this week that one or two commentators remarked on the inappropriateness of the Queen attending a cabinet meeting despite it being a purely courteous event in honour of her diamond jubilee. The importance of this division of political power between monarch and parliament is, or in adversity could be, critical. In the USA the Constitution ranks as the equivalent of a monarch. During the next four years you can expect to see a sustained and savage attack on its influence. At the same time, you will see a determined assault on the American economy with mounting taxation strangling medium-sized enterprises - Big Business always works hand-in-glove with governments of any persuasion! At the same time the national finances will be driven to, and off, a real 'fiscal cliff', not the pretend one they are 'arguing' about today. Obama and his backroom commissariat will do a 'Brown & Balls', that is, they will spend, and spend, and spend again, to support their own constitutencies. In the unlikely event that a Republican wins the next election he will be faced with the monumental task - and a huge backlash of public opinion - of clawing back unaffordable benefits as he struggles to repair the nation's finances whilst the international 'Shylocks' ramp-up interest rates on reckless American borrowing which will probably be in excess of $20 trillion by 2116. You can see just how successful the 'Brown & Balls' strategy has been 'over here' as a feeble and gutless conservative who only just managed to 'win' the election has lacked the courage to do the necessary and public opinion, sensing his weakness, is already turning against him and towards . . . well, ABC, really - 'Anyone But Cameron'!
Pity poor America, the beacon on the hill is flickering!
I was prompted to this (long-winded) post by a memorial written by Jeffrey Lord and dedicated to the late Robert Bork in The American Spectator.
For a very brief brief(!) on the malignancies of Saul Alinsky try these "Rules for Radicals"