The Hubris of Nation Builders

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Guest Post by Lee A. Presser

My friend Bill Hennessy wrote an excellent 11-12-16 blog analysis of Anglo-American history and how it relates to Mr. Trump’s victory (http://hennessysview.com/2016/11/12/how-the-second-born-twin-can-be-older-than-the-first/).  After reading that blog I phoned him to add a tangential thought.  Bill suggested I share the thought with you.

It took 561 years (from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence) for the idea of limited government and political equality to infuse itself into Anglo-American culture.  By 1776 enough people believed in the possibility, that they were willing to fight for it and organize a government based on it after a battlefield victory.

In 2003 George W. Bush sent American troops into Iraq to remove its leader, Saddam Hussein.  At the start of the war, 72% of Americans interviewed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll were in favor the war, while 25% were opposed.  That support rapidly eroded when the public discovered that after Saddam Hussein was in custody, President Bush intended to keep troops in Iraq until that country was democratized and a representative form of government was inaugurated.

President Bush had a strong mandate from the American people to win a war and remove an evil leader.  He did not have a mandate to sacrifice American lives to democratize Iraq.

Unlike the Anglo-American quest for limited government and political equality, the Iraqi people had been on no such journey.  They never imaged limited government as a cultural goal nor were they going to organize a government based on it after a battlefield victory.  Their culture, like most Middle-Eastern and Asian cultures, believed in strong leadership from the top down.  Individuals owed allegiance to the head of the family, the various family leaders submitted politically and militarily to the strongest leader.

Had President Bush crushed Saddam Hussein, hung him and his immediate chain of command, warned the successor leaders of Iraqnot to attack American interests again, he would have ended the war there and then.

Apparently, President Bush thought the Iraqi people could immediately achieve what it took Anglo-American culture over 500 years to accomplish; for the idea of limited government and political equality to infuse itself into a culture.  He insisted on providing the Iraqi people a form of government they did not seek and most knew little about.

Greek philosophers had a word for President Bush’s thinking process, hubris.

The Conservative Base Is Dying And Taking Your Freedom With It *CORRECTION*

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Consider these numbers:

  • 9.8 million
  • 11.6 million 16.8 million
  • 55%
  • 61%

Between the 2008 and 2012 elections:

Between those years, neither the GOP nor conservative leaning organizations did anything significant to deal with this demographic cliff. We know the cost.

What was Obama’s popular vote margin?  About the same as the difference between deaths and new voters. (1.8 million difference in dead voters vs. new voting age, and 1.07 difference in vote.)

For the next four years, there is only one objective: inform the kids.

On this front, there’s a glimmer of hope. According to a Harvard Institute of Politics survey, the youngest of those 11.6 million new voters, are becoming fiscal conservatives:

In one poll, for instance, he found that 42 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds identified as “conservative,” compared with just over one-third who said they were “liberal.” By comparison, those proportions were nearly flipped for 22- to 24-year-olds: 39 percent said they were “liberal,” and a third called themselves “conservative.” It was much the same for older twentysomethings.

Obama’s disastrous economy has a lot to do with this “schism” between younger and older Millennials. Though 51% of voters blame the nation’s economy on George W. Bush, the 18- and 19-year-olds were 14 or 15 when the economy crashed.  They were less aware of the good times of the 00’s and more aware of Obama’s inability to fix things.

Crush Sensibilities

Knowing these facts–the death of aging conservatives, which will continue, and the matriculation of school-trained Democrat voters–I see no reason to consider the past. It’s time to focus exclusively on the future.

The future I see involves a three-pronged strategy to reform conservative politics:

  • Marketing
  • Psychology
  • Messaging

This is a moral duty. I won’t waste more of my time placating the sensibilities of the establishment. That’s both the GOP establishment and the Tea Party establishment. (Yes, there’s a Tea Party establishment, and it stopped helping the situation in 2010.)

I need your help. 

If you want to help advance liberty and slow tyranny, statism, authoritarianism, whatever, then follow this link and tell me. Tell me you want to help.

**UPDATE**

I’m not the only one talking about the Republican problem of targeting seniors instead of talking to kids. Allahpundit:

 The advantage of relying heavily on senior citizens, as the GOP does, is that they turn out reliably on election day. The disadvantage is, er, that they die, just as 18-year-olds — most of whom are pro-Obama — are coming onto the rolls.

The GOP needs a Cadillac-like makeover, and it needs one now.

*Based on data from US Census Bureau