That our civic taxonomy has become a slave to liberalism's sacred pact with political correctness is undeniable, as is the left's antagonistic view of confrontation or, for that matter, anything that demands intellectual discipline.  Senator Jon Kyle (R-AZ), writing in the Christian Science Monitor, makes a convincing case that we haven't learned from the gross miscalculations of thirty years ago when America and the West exhibited a pattern of moral cowardice.

Quoting from the speeches of Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Mr. Kyle provides credible evidence that the misguided concern for the rights of historical belligerents has resurfaced in the left's abiding preoccupation with those of the Islamic terrorists.  Nothing in President Bush's post-9/11 initiatives has compromised the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens, only individuals who are either non-citizen enemy combatants or those suspected of terrorist affiliations.

Yet many on the left and a handful of libertarians are decrying the tactics employed to pre-emptively disrupt the terrorists, fundamentally characterizing government intervention as an abridgment of our civil rights.  We must ask why it is that many Democrats and nearly all liberals have such a profoundly different perspective concerning this evil in our midst.

At its heart, liberalism is a polity that instinctively eschews responsibility, on the one hand by establishing a different metric of behavioral expectations of entire ethnic and economic classes of people, and, by extension, effectively ceding to real or would-be aggressors a strategic advantage that is tantamount to a pre-emptive surrender.

If we naively misappraise our enemy, it inevitably leads to a foreign policy that is more concerned with their response to our diplomatic and strategic posture than with our ability to achieve a situational advantage favorable to subjugating them.  Indeed, the very notion of U.S. pre-eminence is anathema to most liberals because it connotes to them a lack of humility, which, in their rendering of the notion, is truly more akin to self-loathing.

For some inexplicable reason, every strategic move the Bush Administration makes in order to safeguard American citizens is seen as suspect by the left.  Concurrently, to figuratively look this enemy in the eye and pledge its destruction is contrary to every fiber of their being.  Indeed, their goal, with everything from common criminals to genocidal despots, is to somehow understand them and then to work towards a peaceful co-existence. 

The notable exceptions of this self-imposed rule include capitalists, in particular well-compensated CEOs and highly profitable multinational corporations, which, in their cynical view, are on a par with the world's pariahs.

At the end of his editorial, Senator Kyle again quotes Mr. Solzhenitsyn:

The fight, physical and spiritual for our planet, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started.

That was almost thirty years ago.

Politicians are notorious historical revisionists.  When their views  metamorphose incrementally into a position diametrically opposed to their original which, evidence shows, was just as fervently held, they either justify their newly dressed conclusions or entirely ignore the glaring contradiction. 

The case of Senator Hillary Clinton, who not only voted to support the war in Iraq but has described the decision making process she used in convincing detail, is prototypical, because her recent full-throated criticisms of President Bush betray a revisionist instinct:

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision.

Principled political behavior has always been conspicuous, in large measure because it is so rare, and together with its close cousin, political honesty, they form a kind of dyad that either provides or undermines credibility. 

When juxtaposing Sens. Clinton and Lieberman, we can't help notice that the former is permanently engaged in a desperate search for political advantage.  Indeed, she doesn't stake out positions that consistently and honestly characterize her thinking; instead, she is always seen rhetorically reaching for arguments that produce even a modicum of political purchase, regardless of the fact that they are the least convincing.

Senator Lieberman, in contrast, speaks with a sense of unalloyed conviction and, regardless of whether one disagrees with him, his candor reflects the fact that he never needs to consult his advisers to answer a question.  His values and principles are evident in every utterance and he argues with a disarming sense of decency, the very antithesis of Mrs. Clinton.

Her time last weekend in Iowa was spent in diligent pursuit of a political makeover, to doff her well earned image of being a shrill, sharp-edged tactician who would gladly dispatch friend and family alike if it became politically expedient.

However, as Shelby Steele has observed, former President Clinton demonstrated that if a Democrat's policies are aligned with his party's platform he is forgiven even the most egregious violations of ethics and law.  Indeed, why is it that Sandy Berger is not in federal prison, or why is there no active investigation of Rep. William Jefferson?  Yet there is a three year investigation--and now a trial--for Scooter Libby, not for any crime originating with the original charges, but because of alleged perjury.

Therefore, Mrs. Clinton, who mysteriously found the Rose Law firm billing records in the White House and who was complicit in the transfer of 900 Republican officials' files from the FBI, will never have to face those charges because of the "D" after her name.

It's nice to have the press as an ally, not to mention academia, Hollywood, and the forces of popular culture.

Although world opinion is a volatile and unpredictable phenomenon, a broad consensus has emerged that the United States is no longer a force for good.  Integrally related to that sentiment is the nascent concurrence that the U.S.'s days as the unchallenged hegemonic power in the world are numbered.

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek examines some of the implications of a world where the U.S. no longer plays the role of the lone superpower, and it's not an endearing picture.  Leadership in our age has become endangered because the world's civilized nations are disinclined to confront the root causes of their economic and social ills.  Whether it's Germany's moribund economy or France's dysfunctional woes due to the influx of Muslims, their actions betray a remarkably dim understanding of what their respective situations demand.

The down-stream, collective impacts reflect the fact that there is no evident over-arching design to world operations.  As Mr. Zakaria observes:

The global system--economic, political, social--is not self-managing.  Without some coordination, or first-mover--or, dare one say, leader- -such management is more difficult.

He is either being coy or disingenuous because a rudderless world--which is what it would become sans America--would be a world adrift and buffeted by the noxious winds of extremists of all stripes, primary among them, the Islamists.

Mr. Zakaria ends his piece on a particularly despondent note, quoting Niall Ferguson's analysis in Foreign Affairs some three years ago, wherein he argues that the end of American hegemony might not trigger an evolution into an orderly "multipolar system, but a descent in to a world of highly fragmented powers, with no one exercising any global leadership."  He called this "apolarity," by which he means:

...an anarchic new Dark Age, an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism, of economic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions, of economic stagnation, and civilizations retreat in to a few fortified enclaves.

Forgiving his indulgent, hyperbolic rhetoric, Mr. Ferguson has merely extrapolated from the world's existing regimes which are, to put it generously, not optimally managed.

Clearly, economic mediocrity and social dysfunction are breeding grounds for fanatics with totalitarian designs, and we have evidence of that in the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad, who has sworn the destruction of Israel. 

The world grows more fragile and susceptible to these voracious extremist appetites each day and although the U.S. will remain a formidable power on the world's stage, with the advent of asymmetrical warfare, its historically unassailable military prowess is of far less utility. 

That makes the argument for pre-emptive action on every front available a crucial policy, indeed, one that may be our last best hope.

As ClearCommentary has argued in a variety of recent posts, achieving stability in Iraq is an irrefutable proxy for the broader war against the Islamic extremists.  In the balance is not only the Middle East but the belated dominos in Europe and ultimately the United States, which will either fall or be sustained by a policy that fully understands what is truly at stake.

As we know, there is a metastasizing number of what can euphemistically be called 'moderate' Republicans in Congress, but especially in the Senate.  They may vary in their background but they share an inbred sense of diffidence with respect to what it takes to prevail in Iraq. 

Call it 'cultural incompetence' or an instinctive need to distance themselves from President Bush in advance of elections, they betray an unprincipled allegiance to Democrats who have effectively surrendered in Iraq and are waiting in the wings with white flags.

Please don't listen to them, but rather, sign the pledge to send them the unequivocal message that undermining the commander-in-chief when he has initiated a strategic course correction can only embolden the enemy and put our troops in serious jeopardy.

Take two minutes to sign the pledge because it may make a difference.

In San Francisco, in the summer of 1968, there was a love-fest of sorts, convened by 'hippies' and other ultra-leftists.  There were protests against the Vietnam war and many posters and pickets, several of them read:

Love is patient, love is kind.  It is not pompous, it is not inflated.  Love never fails.  --Author unknown.

It is, indeed, the case that those who penned those words were unfamiliar with its author, which is St. Paul's first Letter to the Corinthians, and the aftermath of their bastardization of his teachings led to the cultural cannibalism that focused on self-love, earthly love, which is the very antithesis of what St. Paul was instructing.

It also led to the death of tens of millions of innocents in the womb, skyrocketing single parenthood and inveterate poverty, rampant teenage pregnancy which virtually guarantees a life of suboptimal income, and causes the intergenerational transfer of poverty, not to mention a desiccated spiritual life.

It's the sin of pride, the philosophically misguided hegemony of self over God, and the denial of two thousand years of hard-earned wisdom, all of which confirms the legacy of stupidity the left propagated with such a convincing thoughtlessness.

Judged by a distant future generation, the salient characteristic of our age may well be our remarkably resilient, if myopic disdain of principle.  Writing in the Boston Herald, Ann McFeatters walks us through the endlessly rehearsed sins of Vice President Dick Cheney, from his impolitic support of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the insult to our feminized culture reflected in his assertion that America may not "have the stomach" to fight in Iraq.

Ms. McFeatters' response, issued from her cosseted residence in the intellectual bell jar known as liberalism, is predictable:

The statement is amazing.  Americans have given the president a virtual blank check for four years.  The price has included the loss of 3,000 sons and daughters, the disabling of thousands more, the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars and lost prestige around the globe.

Inherent in this kind of self-indulgent thinking is not merely a defeatist attitude but a fundamental ignorance of war and a concomitant denial of the value of victory.  To prevail in war means not merely applying a principled and disciplined sense of commitment but of understanding its inherently chaotic and unpredictable nature, including the inevitable sense of hopelessness that will stun us into seriously questioning whether victory is, indeed, possible.

That is precisely the script that the leadership of any astute and formidable enemy in any war runs continuously through its mind, and its every move is predicated on achieving goals that demonstrate it, preferably in demoralizing and humiliating ways.  It is for those reasons that McFeatters and her liberal, emasculated brethren are so profoundly and obviously ill-equipped to prosecute this or any other war. 

Indeed, they bring to the battle a pre-measured sense of determination that effectively guarantees they will reach a point beyond which they are simply incapable of proceeding.  Applying their stinting and diffident boldness to any war in U.S. history, we could be confident that victory would have been impossible.

This betrays in these defeatists both an astounding misunderstanding of our Republic's history and founding principles and an adolescent-like unwillingness to  see beyond the immediate emotive discomfort and manifest horror of witnessing the diurnal carnage of war.   It also is an effective denial that evil of a magnitude that demands our commitment to confront it exists, preferring rather to live a Mayfly existence, cherishing each moment, convinced that it may well be our last.

That, of course, is a wholesale and indefensible abdication of the principles that sustained us through the darkest hours of two world wars and the threat of nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.  It is also an oblique but undeniable endorsement of defeatism, or, more damningly stated, the studied application of our cultural incompetence, which will perfectly situate us in the cross hairs of the Islamic extremists.

It's an abhorrent and shameful legacy, but one that we appear to be actively embracing.

Two important points in the debate concerning President Bush's proposal to achieve stability in Iraq illustrate the unprecedented nature of the Democrats' political response.  Both of them highlighted in a detailed article in today's Washington Post. 

The first is that never in American wartime history has an opposition party pre-emptively dismissed a president's strategic realignment during combat operations.  Besides the Constitutional authority provided by Article II, Congress has always afforded the president the latitude to make course corrections based on evolving circumstances on the ground.

Skeptics should examine America's numerous missteps during WWII in the Pacific.  From Guadalcanal to Tarawa, tens of thousands of servicemen were killed due to poor planning, an unpredictable enemy, and belated strategic corrections.  The difference is that we all knew who the real enemy was, and a measure of humility and patience led us to rally around the president to provide the support necessary to prevail. 

In contrast, Congressional Democrats haven't even allowed President Bush's plan to unfold before they lodged summarily dismissive criticism and sarcastically vilified it with an enthusiasm that was as unnecessary as it was unbecoming.

The second point is that the Democrats' have never articulated a cohesive and credible alternative plan.  Enter Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who, according to the article:

...said congressional Democrats have united around three basic goals:  shifting the primary U.S. mission in Iraq from combat to the training of Iraqis, beginning a 'phased redeployment' of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within the next six months and implementing 'an aggressive diplomatic strategy' in the region and beyond.

Mr. Hoyer's characterization his goals conveniently reframes them from a real world context to one that is purely academic:  To wit, President Bush's plan has always been to stand up the Iraqi army, the question is when events on the ground will allow the U.S. to reduce its combat role?  If we do so prematurely chaos will ensue and it's that reality that Mr. Hoyer's facile 'goal' fails to appreciate.

Second, numerous military analysts have severely criticized the notion of telegraphing a withdrawal date for two reasons:  First, is that it is impossible to predict the status of combat operations in six months which undermines the flexibility needed to adjust time-lines; second, is that it is strategically misinformed because all the enemy must do is wait six months to attack.

As for diplomacy, to whom does Mr. Hoyer suggest we speak?  Iran?  Syria?  Diplomacy for the sake of establishing contact with another nation is of little utility unless there is a reasonable chance something substantive can be gained.  Both those nations have a long history of duplicity and dishonesty, and are known state sponsors of terrorism.  We may as well schedule some time with the devil.

Patience is a virtue that for Democrats is at odds with their political objectives.  They can add nuance and coloration to their quality and intent of their remarks and the medley of policies that emanate from them, but they can't refute the charge that they are undermining a commander-in-chief who, in contrast to them, is determined to win this war.

A sigh of seismic proportions was registered by Democratic politicians as Senator John Kerry announced he would not seek the presidential nomination.  Republicans, in contrast, were both surprised and dismayed because they will be denied a predictably entertaining campaign, one punctuated by rhetorical gaffs, laughably staged photo-ops (wind surfing anyone?), and debates that would highlight the Boston Brahmin's acerbic personality.

But, as we lament the loss of political humor, we should also focus on one revealing sentence in his statement.  After indicating he would not seek the nomination, Mr. Kerry asserted that he belonged in the Senate, and that his role would be to "end the war in Iraq," on the face of it a sincere sentiment.

However, we must ask whether he and his liberal brethren want to "end" the war or "win" it.  Failure in war, as commanders from Alexander the Great to MacArthur have said, is abhorrent and unacceptable.  Not, apparently, according to many Democrats.

In an editorial characterized by a transparent sense of quiet desperation, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek tries to elevate Senator Jim Webb's rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union speech to Churchillian oratory.

Mr. Webb, he argues, is a moderate, perhaps conservative Democrat with unassailable military credentials, who masterfully set a "new tone" that has the power to resuscitate the party from its well-earned reputation for cowardice.  He's half right in that his military credentials are rock solid, but that's where the argument disintegrates.

Although Mr. Alter didn't address it, we could add to his argument Mr. Webb's predictable portrayal of the working class wage earner as permanently barred from participation in our highly successful economy.  It may be a new tone but the message is tiresomely similar to the one liberals have been replaying for decades because Webb even states that corporate America isn't "sharing the wealth."  Enter the redistributionists.

Webb's assertions are predicated on a cynical mischaracterization of our economy as freezing people in hopeless jobs with bleak futures, kept under the boot of an indifferent and callous CEO who is garnering a proverbially "obscene" salary. 

With respect to our national security, Mr. Alter argues that Webb's speech

...represented a return to the tough-minded liberalism of Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey...

There is simply no evidence that the party is returning to the flinty and uncompromising likes of Jackson on foreign policy because nothing Mr. Webb said, nor any utterance from any other Democrat, has diverged from the party line, which is some version of retreat in Iraq.

Combined with their reticence or outright rejection of warrantless wiretaps for communications in which one party is a suspected terrorist, Alter and his ilk have no verifiable evidence of a sea change concerning their absolute lack of conviction.

Mr. Webb abused President Theodore Roosevelt in a deft comparison of the "robber barons" and contemporary corporate America which, in his view, exploits vulnerable workers for profit.  Webb and his Democratic brethren should be careful not to vilify the 62 percent of Americans who now own stock mutual funds because, as an apt bumper sticker states, "If you want to criticize farmers, don't talk with your mouth full."

The facts in the matter are that this economy is stronger than that of the much vaunted 1990s, boasting effective full employment at 4.4 percent, inflation in a straight jacket, productivity at nearly 3 percent, tax receipts up due to President Bush's cuts, and the deficit halved three years early. 

Wages are also rising and, most critically, Mr. Webb's craven critique of the average American worker, which features a downtrodden and economically abject individual, belies the reality that opportunity for those with a strong work ethic and training is at an unprecedented high.  But, to further confirm that a changed tone in no manner reflects a change in substance, the Democrats only win when they convince the electorate that they are beholden to them for their economic future.

Mr. Alter finishes by conceding that "Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class."  True to their political form, they look for "remedies" for economic problems, when the answer is simply to better prepare for this new age.  The government and our elected officials can assist by reducing--eliminating would be a pipe dream--regulatory obstacles, keep capital inexpensive, and taxes low. 

The reality is that if corporate America can find a way to achieve economies of scale or greater efficiencies it will do so and shareholders will be the beneficiaries. 

The left's reflexive recourse, which is to lobby for protectionist measures, regulate, tax, or use the judiciary to redress their alleged woes only exacerbates the ultimate outcome because our free market system has highly sophisticated mechanisms for correcting untoward interference.

In the end, we'll judge the presumably "new" Democrats on their actions, but, Mr. Alter's crafty argument notwithstanding, whether it's the war in Iraq, the broader war against the Islamic extremists, or finding ways to "assist" American workers, there is simply nothing new under the Democratic sun.

Yesterday marked the 34th anniversary of the ignoble Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.  Here, in Colorado Springs, and across the nation, Christian services correctly focused on 52 million innocent victims of this heinous act of judicial overreach, but a mention should be made of those complicit in its perpetuation.

The perverse notion of "choice," so adroitly exploited by liberals, is a euphemistic luxury that is thankfully becoming less defensible in any, including polite conversation.  With the advent of sophisticated imaging equipment, millions of American women and their husbands have seen the tiny miracle of life in its earliest stages, fragile and faint, but nonetheless an undeniable living blueprint that each of us once was.

Against that backdrop, the non sequitur peddled by the left--that the entity whose minuscule heart beats with such a hopeful flutter is not a separate human being--has been all but expunged from public debate.  Yet the liberals continue to insist that their right to destroy that life should never be infringed, a morally indefensible position, one that is on an ethical par with arguments that sought to justify pograms during Nazi Germany. 

As is the case with the evolution of all laws, there are both legal and moral dimensions.  Those who deny the latter have typically not examined the underpinnings of our Western legal framework, because our laws are ultimately and undeniably moral assertions, which are themselves based on shared values.

As such, we can debate the legal foundation for a given law, but there are moral issues that inevitably work their ways into the fabric of our discussion, because, our post-modern instincts notwithstanding, most of us believe in the sanctity of all human life.

That leads us to the grim reality that is the last polemical refuge for those who assert their right to destroy an innocent human life in the womb, and that is the tyranny of the living.  Unlike you and me, the 52 million souls who were never allowed to take their first breath are silent but powerful reminders of the amoral way in which modern humans have selfishly denied the right of life to the most innocent among us.

Most of us go about our daily lives unbothered by that horrific legacy, but that in no way immunizes us from the obligation to declare where we stand on this issue.  Moral cowardice has led millions to hide behind the threadbare arguments noted above, but a growing number of people, even those who historically defended Roe v. Wade, have developed a more penetrating--which is to say, a more factual--understanding of the moral dimensions of abortion.

Implicit in that understanding is a capacity to hear those silenced voices, those cast off souls, those faceless humans who, unlike us, were denied the right to breathe, to love, and to savor all that it means to be alive.

We can only pray that the progress that has been made continues, and that the presumed enlightenment that the left champions in its defense of the Spotted Owl or the Darter Snail might encourage them to include their fellow human beings.

Speculation about the timing of Senator Hillary Clinton's announcement of her presidential ambitions can be found in every major newspaper and on all radio talk shows.  Richard Adams, writing in the U.K. Guardian, provides a well-rounded survey of opinions and positions, but ultimately concludes that her announcement was an act of political desperation which reflects poorly on her judgment and instincts.

The obvious observation that Senator Barack Obama's pre-emptive announcement upstaged Mrs. Clinton and sent shock waves that reverberated throughout the nation fails to tell the entire story.  This is an instance when political nuance and stratagems play a far more crucial role.

Although Mrs. Clinton has tacked hard to the center in recent years, most analysts believe it's part of a strategy to disabuse the electorate of her staunch liberal credentials.  The rationale is that although candidates tend to hue to party policy positions to secure the nomination, she's always kept her eye on the general election because the nomination was hers to lose.  Now, of course, with Mr. Obama in the race, that may well happen, which has short-circuited her game plan.

Dealing with Senator John Edwards was a challenge her campaign relished because many Democrats believe he has limited appeal and has "also ran" written all over him.  But Mr. Obama brings not only a fresh and likable candidate into the equation, he is black, and many Democratic analysts believe that's a clear advantage that trumps the gender variable--especially when the candidate is Mrs. Clinton, whose baggage, it has been observed, all the bellhops at the Mayflower Hotel, couldn't carry.

The calculated--read staged--warmth and personalized nature of her announcement belies a trove of historical encounters the nation has in its collective memory, and a few of the prominent traits include iciness, shrillness, and an absolute lack of candor.  A kind of 21st century Lady Macbeth, but without the charm.

Juxtapose, for example, Lady Margaret Thatcher with Senator Clinton.  In Mrs. Thatcher we had a principled woman whose values were telegraphed with absolute clarity in every move she made, and who brought a sense of forthrightness and candor to the office of prime minister.  She was politically astute but most often allowed her instincts to guide her and she did so with grace and a sense of historical purpose. 

None of that can be said of Mrs. Clinton who, paradoxically, seems more like the clubby, machine bosses of Chicago's Daley fame, which is to say, the consummate political operative, a master of behind the scenes deals, who present a wholly false public persona.  One senses in her speeches and public comments an almost morbid preoccupation with political calculation, that every utterance or gesture is designed to elicit a certain response.

Mr. Obama is certainly aware of the need to craft an image that will resonate, but he does so with a casual and instinctive sense of certitude, one with which his audience immediately identifies.  That is political kryptonite for Mrs. Clinton and her decision to announce her candidacy when and how she did reflects her incipient sense of panic.

Freedom, it has been correctly observed, has a vital corollary, responsibility.  Not merely compliance with laws and regulations, but a kind of civic maturity and adherence to the principles of truth.  Since our universities are charged with both educating students and with the advancement of knowledge, it's vital that checks and balances are maintained to ensure a measure of intellectual honesty.

In a recent editorial, Steve Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, exposes Brandeis University Professor of Middle East Studies, Natanta J. DeLong-Bas, for what can only be described as a pattern of willful academic heresy.  Beyond denying that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, the professor blames all of the Muslim world's problems on the U.S. and Israel.  She further denies that religious extremism and Islamic terrorism are causally related.

Mr. Schwartz accurately describes Middle East Studies programs as "totalitarian" in nature because they exist in a hermetic world where information and ideas that don't neatly comport with their rigid presuppositions are proscribed.  As such, they are efficient mechanisms for limiting academic freedom in ways that should horrify university regents, reliably recycling as they do the most egregious stereotypes and specious arguments concerning the true nature of Islamic extremism.

That our children are being intellectually abused and our hard-earned money misspent is sufficiently alarming, but at least as damaging is the fact that these "scholars" feed our media, intelligence agencies, and elected officials, what is unquestionably propaganda, although with the unassailable patina of academic authority.

There is virtually nothing that will arrest intellectual curiosity and inquiry more effectively than the smug and self-serving academics who conduct classes and seminars like educational gulags, pre-emptively dismissing with disarming authoritarianism any challenge to their sanctimonious fictions.

It's also astounding that so few colleagues, both within Middle East Studies programs and in related disciplines, challenge these Ayatollahs of intellectual rigidity.  What, after all, is the ultimate goal of a university if not to ensure academic balance in the pursuit of knowledge, while creating an atmosphere that encourages students to challenge assumptions?

It is merely more evidence--as though more were needed--that liberalism, which has a stranglehold on the entire spectrum of our humanities programs, is an ideologically inflexible and narrow minded polity, one that is at once intellectually insecure and dismissive of any attempt to question its authority.

Americans with I.Q.s above room temperature are aware that federal tax revenues in 2006 increased 26 percent as a result of President Bush's tax cuts.  That, in turn, halved the deficit several years earlier than the accounting wizards at the General Accounting Office predicted.

Apparently none of this information has penetrated the hardened bunkers of liberalism which is where E.J. Dionne is safely ensconced.

In Mr. Dionne's skewed view of the world the tax cuts "dug the country hundreds of billions of dollars deeper in debt," and he concurrently argues that we should be spending money on "universal health care" and "alternative energy," ideas that presidential nominee John Edwards champions.

It should be observed that when liberals state they want to "put policies in place now that achieve sustainable fiscal balance," we can be certain they will do so on the backs of corporate America.  Since they have virtually no understanding of economics, they always scan the policy horizon for the target with the least political exposure, whether it's the pharmaceutical industry, managed care companies, or the oil industry.

They are apparently blind to the well documented fact that when politicians increase the cost of doing business there is an adverse pricing impact downstream.  So when they have corporations in their cross hairs we should remind them that it's actually consumers they are unwittingly targeting.

Although there is overwhelming evidence that supports the fiscal virtues of low taxation and regulation, liberals are inveterate economic and fiscal interventionists and simply can't resist the temptation to curry favor with the electorate by their redistributionist manipulations.  Unfortunately, many Americans feel grateful for their munificence, unaware of the secondary, latent costs. 

It's largely if not exclusively an emotional argument, and seeing liberals getting bleary-eyed as they talk about the uninsured and the poor it's no wonder voters are drawn by their heart-rending siren song. 

Indeed, Dionne has achieved perfect pitch in terms of rendering completely palatable policies that years ago were proved ineffective or outright deleterious.  That's because each new generation brings with it new customers for the liberals to play to, and play they do: 

[Democrats] need to do something about long-festering social problems.  These have been aggravated by declines in health care coverage and in the number of families receiving federal help for child care.  There is also evidence that many poor people aren't getting the nutrition assistance they need.

It's a scene right out of Dickens.  You see, although it's been convincingly demonstrated that the vast majority of people in the lowest economic quintile in year X are in the third quintile within 10 years, and a significant portion of those in the fourth three years hence, the liberals' well-rehearsed script is to characterize "the poor" as permanent members of the lowest ranks. 

Indeed, if Dionne and his ilk were completely candid about our vibrant and fluid economy their arguments would lose their political potency.  But candor is not among their virtues and with their minions in the media faithfully--read uncritically--transcribing their message to the voters, they have an effective monopoly on the market, albeit one achieved by duplicity, cynicism, and pandering.

Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Niall Ferguson, Lawrence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard and author of several prestigious books and articles concerning war and terrorism.  Professor Ferguson has distinguished himself among the field of academics, in particular military historians, by arguing that the ideological framework that many in America believe undergirds the West's modern wars is, more accurately, a function of pragmatic political realities.

He further argues that those in the Neo-Con camp, either nominally or by default--i.e., from Victor Davis Hanson to Bernard Lewis--inadvertently or otherwise, use the ideological argument to inject a kind of rhetorical adrenaline into their otherwise less than convincing line of reasoning to justify or legitimize their motivations for war.

Applying his formula to Iraq, the professor believes it is time to send in United Nations troops, a remarkably purblind notion, one born out of and understandable, if immature frustration at the lack of progress.  He also dismisses President Bush's foundational belief, most recently asserted during his speech two weeks ago, that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. 

Rather, he argues, the warring parties constitute sectarian strife, and that the U.S. is merely in the line of fire and not the primary target of their animosities.  He also enlists the common, if superficial argument that our presence has incited Islamic extremists which would not have been the case had we not invaded Iraq.  Although his arguments seem plausible, they are rife with flaws.

First, although the violence is, indeed, sectarian in nature, the broader and therefore more accurate analysis strongly suggests that if an Iraq governed by its newly written constitution becomes stable, it is far less likely to become a safe haven for terrorists or to be a staging ground from which terrorism can be exported.

Second, Professor Ferguson's argument that our presence has contributed to the rise of Islamic extremism is only plausible if one believes that the pattern of devastating attacks on the West in the past 30 years by Muslim terrorists would abate had we not invaded Iraq.  In fact, all the evidence confirms that there is nothing the U.S. can do to appease the extremists.

Therefore, it can be argued that our efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq have actually compressed the overall timetable for this broader war by accelerating confrontation with what is an inevitability--that is, a war fought on multiple fronts for control of the world.  That's not an ideological analysis but one supported by the numerous fatwas and other communications from Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremist leaders.

We can become lost in a semantical argument regarding the nature of this or any war, and although it's important not to indulge in justifications for conflicts whose only intent is to bolster support, there is more than adequate evidence that the Islamic extremists intend to decimate the West.  Whether their motivations are based on a hatred of our economic and civil freedoms, which have produced both immense wealth and a standard of living unprecedented in history--along with a measure of culturally noxious characteristics--or whether they are convinced that Islamism is the world's pre-eminent religion, destined to dominate the world, the reality is that they have sworn to eliminate every vestige of Western civilization from the world.

In that view, Iraq is a putatively key geopolitical foothold that will either become a stronghold for freedom and self-determination or a seething nest of terrorism that will only strengthen Iran and Syria's designs of making the Middle East a redoubt of salafist forces, a kind of Islamic Mordor, to borrow from the epic work, Lord of the Rings.

However, if we can short-circuit their strategy by prevailing in Iraq we will have kept them off balance which will strengthen our hand when dealing with Iran.  In contrast, were we to follow the Democrats' recommendations, whether it's Senator Clinton's nebulous nostrums, or Rep. Murtha's defeatist strategy, we would be ceding control of Iraq to the extremists while effectively confirming to our enemies that we're not capable of prevailing in a protracted conflict.  That, in turn, will only embolden them and incite a more virulent form of aggressiveness, not only in the Middle East but here at home.

The first two episodes of 24 present an apt picture of what life in America might be like should we lose in Iraq.

It's obvious that our elastic election cycles are forcing candidates to stake out positions and declare their intentions in historically unprecedented ways.  Indeed, the 2008 presidential race is already becoming incandescent, with a bevy of candidates on both sides marshaling their troops in anticpation of a major war. 

Steve Kornacki, writing in The New York Observer, has already over-imbibed at the Obama font where the political elixir is both potent and abundant.

His argument for the vaibility of an Obama presidential run is twofold:  First, is that after last year's election, one can infer that the electoral map favors a Democrat, and second, when judged in the context of likely Democratic competitors--Senator Clinton, John Edwards, et al--he may have less inhibiting baggage and he projects a fresher unrehearsed persona.

All of this has a certain amount of plausibility, which for those enamored with Mr. Obama, is comforting, because many Democrats, moderates, in particular, believe that Mrs. Clinton would require a porter to carry all her political baggage and that Mr. Edwards is just Dennis Kucinich with a southern drawl, id est, off the left edge of the chart.

But that reformulation of the field aside, Mr. Obama is not just untested in terms of such currently crucial areas as foreign affairs, his senate voting record as well as that of the Illinois legislature belies his apparently moderate political bearing.  Indeed, although his passionate embrace of the proverbial need for a "new beginning" in our political discourse does resonate with Americans fatigued by infighting and impasses, early indications are that he is a faithful liberal.

And, although political figures such as Mr. Obama typically project a fuzzy image early in campaigns, and although the media has telegraphed predictable signs of its own uniquely disturbing infatuation, they will undoubtedly be forced into pressing him on the substantive issues. 

At that time we will know more about whether he is a truly viable candidate, but there is every reason to believe that when the glitter fades and the packaging is removed we will be left with a paradigmatic liberal senator, albeit from Illinois, not the North-East.