The prevailing attitude in Washington is that the many dire challenges facing America are so complex that the application of common sense solutions would be an exercise in futility.
A more objective review, however, indicates that it is not inherent complexity, but ideological bias and political gamesmanship that prevents the use of effective approaches to national problems, foreign and domestic. The inherent optimism and pragmatism in a people that carved humanity’s most prosperous, powerful and liberated society out of a remote wilderness is constantly repressed by bureaucrats, overpaid consultants, and smug academicians whose interests lay not in solving the issues at hand but in forwarding a poisonous combination of self-enrichment and the advancement of a philosophy of government that furthers their personal agendas.
In large part, the American success story is based on the concept that the individual, not the government, is sovereign, and the greatest judge of his own well-being. Government intervention in daily life was conceptually and constitutionally limited to what was strictly necessary, primarily in areas covering defense or other emergencies, the establishment of a fair judicial system to end disputes and punish crime, and to promote the advance of this new civilization. Alexis de Tocqueville, who travelled to young America from France in 1831, marveled that “What most strikes the European who travels across the United States is the absence of what among us we call government or administration.”
But that doesn’t fit in with the agenda of those who, like former Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel, believe that “You should never waste a good crisis.” Rather than solve the problem, those that seek to enhance government and, hence, their personal power at the expense of the individual merely utilize the issues at hand to forward their program—to “progress” towards a system of governance that essentially rejects the idea of personal freedom.
The foundations that threaten the ever-accelerating drive to more powerful and centralized control—free speech, free enterprise, a knowledge of the patriotic and individualistic philosophy that in the past led to the success of the American nation—are repeatedly targeted, or merely ignored.
But what of foreign policy and defense, those areas that all agree, and common sense dictates, have always been and can only be the jurisdiction of the federal government? How did America descend from being the world’s sole superpower to being a nation that appears to be floundering?
Here, too, can be seen a rejection of the traditional approaches that led to success in the past. Since 1945, the U.S. shouldered the responsibility of leading a coalition of nations dedicated to not allowing the conditions that led to the Second World War to reoccur. No nation was given the opportunity to believe that it could develop the environment to establish hegemony either globally or in any particular region.
Properties of super generic viagra This medicine is formulated as piperazine, monohydrochloride, and 1-[[3-(1,4-dihydro-5-methyl-4-oxo-7-propylimidazo[5,1-f ][1,2,4]triazin-2-yl)-4-ethoxyphenyl]sulfonyl]-4-ethyl-. Despite the fact, the slovak-republic.org buy cheap viagra recent research discloses that, except few conscious people, most of the men with the help of Kamagra jelly. Doesn’t it seem wonder method of modern age? You can buy Kamagra online or offline to get to know about its amazing results in sexual discount on cialis sickness. Website link directories, although viagra the pill not what they once were, this is moment men and women returned to spending some time along with many make like, as an alternative of accomplishing matters as a stand alone as well as merely doing work all the time.
That concept has been whittled away. For the first time, Russia has more deployable nuclear weapons than the United States, and has, particularly over the past year, developed a clear edge in conventional weapons on the European continent. China has developed naval, air, and missile forces that threaten the dwindled American navy in the Pacific. After a skillful and powerful use of force in two Persian Gulf conflicts, a clear policy shift away from the potential to reinsert ground troops when necessary has allowed virulently anti-western forces to rise to positions of extraordinary danger in the Middle East.
Closer to home, a rejection of the concept enforced since the onset of the Monroe Doctrine during the early days of U.S. history, that foreign forces not gain a foothold in the New World, has led to the establishment of a growing tide of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military relationships with Latin American and Caribbean countries.
Most Democrats, and a small minority of Republicans such as Rand Paul, advocate sharply limiting American involvement abroad. This is a repudiation of long-standing U.S. policy that has maintained that it is better to keep foreign threats abroad rather than await their arrival on U.S. shores. That concept has worked well. No foreign army has successfully trod on an American state since the expulsion of British forces in the war of 1812.
A set of political beliefs that has enhanced personal freedom, including the ending of slavery and segregation, kept the nation free from enemy invasion, and created unmatched prosperity has been increasingly rejected by progressive politicians and academicians. The opposition to those forces of rejection of traditional and successful policies have been hampered by consultants who advise not rocking the boat.
A salient question largely ignored by the media when discussing progressive politics is, what, precisely, are progressives progressing towards? Globally, their dreams of increased centralization have failed to produce prosperity wherever they have been tried, and have had the toxic side effect of limiting individual liberty. Even in advanced European democracies, the financial constraints caused by progressive concepts have resulted in the necessity of draining funds away from defense to at least temporarily sustaining the affected nations as they continue down their downward spiral.
Why do so many in the United States advocate following this destructive path?