Victor Davis Hanson on President Obama and the principles of U.S. foreign policy

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and military historian. His October 28 article on the Wall Street Journal's online edition compares the foreign-policy mess that Harry Truman inherited upon unexpectedly being thrust into the presidency with that faced today by President Obama (Truman faced a far worse situation than does Obama). VDH's assessment is that Truman knew less about foreign-policy but learned faster than anyone could have reasonably expected.

The question VDH asks is: "Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable—best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America's historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors?

"Or will a sermonizing Mr. Obama follow the aberrant Democratic path of the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter: finger-wagging at allies, appeasing enemies, publicly faulting his less than perfect predecessors, and hectoring the American people to evolve beyond their supposed prejudices?"

No one knows the answer. But as VDH points out: "America awaits this president's choice. The world safety hinges upon it."

We live in hope.

Is Obama the new Nixon?

In my September 29 post, I discussed a few of the campaign promises that President Obama has already broken, namely promises of transparency in his administration, including his promise to post the log of White House visitors on the Web. As I noted then, President Obama could keep these promises simply with a stroke of a pen (perhaps I should have said with the click of a mouse).

In fact, President Obama is downright Nixonian in his efforts to stonewall both the public and the media--see Quin Hillyer's excellent op-ed on this subject in today's Washington Times:

"The administration repeatedly has stiff-armed Congress, the media, outside organizations and even a prestigious independent government commission. It has raised "none of your business" from an adolescent rejoinder to a public policy - to keep the public in the dark."

Why is President Obama flouting his promises of transparency? Apparently to enable the kind of pay-to-play shenanigans that are an integral part of the "Chicago way." Again, according to the Washington Times:

"During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

"High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times."

Now I am not shocked, shocked to learn that politicking is going on at the White House. But the level of hypocracy is rather breathtaking.

Recent developments in Obamaland

This week and we have a trifecta: three excellent columns about recent events in the Obama White House. The first is by Mark Steyn. His reference to "Mao Ze Dunn" is priceless.

Next, Charles Krauthammer weighs in with a column on the Fox Wars.

Finally, Victor Davis Hanson has a column about the rapidly-changing perceptions of, and dwindling support for, our new President (here).

One salient thought occurred to me even before reading these articles: President Obama has the will to wage an unrelenting war against Fox News, but not against the Islamic Jihadists in Afghanistan.

What is wrong with this picture?

Of vaccine shortages and government-run health care

If the federal government effectively takes over the United States health care system, how well will it run it? The current shortage of the H1N1 flu vaccine at a critical time may provide a clue. The issue, however, is complicated.

Vaccines are privately manufactured. But government's role as a major buyer of vaccines has increased dramatically, starting with the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) in 1994. By 2002, VFC purchases alone were 41% of the total vaccine market, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state and local governments accounting for an additional 16%. (These figures are from an article by the National Center for Policy Analysis.) Members of the Clinton administration boasted at the time that the VFC was a dress rehearsal for Hillarycare. Since the federal government is now the single largest purchaser of vaccines in this country, it effectively controls the market.

Whether or not caused by government policies, there is a critical shortage of vaccine for the flu caused by the H1N1 virus. A study published on October 15 in Eurosurveillance and reported by the Washington Times predicts that almost two thirds of the population will become infected with the virus (though not necessarily exhibit symptoms) before the vaccine becomes widely available. The study was conducted by professors of Purdue University's statistics and mathematics departments. Canada, which already has the single-payer health system that Obama espouses, is in even more dire straits, because of their government's slowness to approve the vaccine.

Does this mean that the federal government will make a hash of our health care system? No, but it hardly inspires confidence.

The facts about health coverage in America

Senator Moynihan once famously observed that people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Given the plethora of numbers being strewn about as to the number of Americans unable to get health coverage, Senator Moynihan must be spinning in his grave.

President Obama, himself, has claimed both that 45 million Americans and 30 million Americans are uninsured. That is quite a spread, especially coming from a single source. A recent article sheds some much-needed light on this issue. Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing in the Washington Post (here), analyzed the Census Bureau's numbers and points out the following: while 46 million people are counted as uninsured, 9 million of those are not U.S. citizens. Moreover, the Census, itself, states that about 9 million people under report their coverage. So, according to Census data, 90% of Americans have health coverage.

Of the 28 million uninsured -- whom President Obama claims "cannot get coverage" -- 18% are between the ages of 18 and 34. For many of these young and healthy individuals, health insurance is a poor bargain that they simply choose to forego. Tellingly, almost half of the uninsured make more than $50,000 a year (more than a quarter make more than $75,000 a year). In short, 95% of Americans either have health coverage or could readily afford to purchase it if they chose to.

So President Obama's plan (he doesn't really have one, but, like him, we'll pretend he does) will cover the remaining 5% of Americans, right? Well, no. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 6% of Americans will remain uninsured even 10 years after the $1 trillion Senate Finance Committee bill is enacted into law (God forbid). So, according to the government's own statistics, Obama's proposed trillion dollar government takeover of our health care system will accomplish precisely nothing.

Let the debate begin.

Race baiting, Rush Limbaugh style.

In my September 25, 2009, post, I asked, rhetorically, if race baiting in this country was dead. The answer, of course, was no. Recent events have now demonstrated that race baiting in this country is not only alive and well, it may be worsening.

This week, it was revealed that Rush Limbaugh was a minority investor in a consortium seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams football team. Upon learning this, the Left reflexively jumped offside. CNN, MSNBC, and other purportedly-reputable media outlets rushed to condemn Limbaugh, falsely reporting that Limbaugh had made statements defending slavery on the merits, and saying that Martin Luther King's murderer deserved a medal. This country's premier race baiters, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, also piled on.


Rush has now been dropped from the Consortium.

Not surprisingly, it turned out these "news" reports were false. For starters, Rush has repeatedly said over the years that he, like Martin Luther King, dreams of a country in which people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Additionally, it beggars belief that Rush made these statements years ago, and no one noticed, much less expressed outrage, at the time.

The fake quotations apparently trace back to a website, which provided no documentation for the bogus quotes. CNN "explained" that it didn't bother to fact-check its story beyond its secondary, undocumented source.

So the legacy media (formerly known as the mainstream media) has sunk to this: CNN will take the time to fact-check a Saturday Night Live skit about Obama, but it won't take the time to fact-check its own news report.

Does CNN understand that it is becoming the new Comedy Channel?

President Obama 's non-strategy in Afghanistan

President Obama says we need a strategy in Afghanistan. Of course we do. But on March 27, he claimed to have forged a "comprehensive" strategy for Afghanistan after a thorough review that included consultations with the military, the leaders of various countries, and key members of Congress. He even appointed a new general to implement his new strategy. (See Charles Krauthammer's excellent Washington Post Article for more details.)

What changed? Nothing changed in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has not changed fundamentally for centuries. That is regrettable, but it hardly explains the President's decision to scrap a comprehensive strategy that he has only begun to implement.

What has changed is the the political landscape in the United States. Obama wanted the government takeover of health care to be completed before the August recess. That didn't happen, and his various schemes are becoming less popular by the week. And a cap and trade bill was supposed to have been passed before government-run healthcare. That bill is moribund. (And gays still can't serve openly in the military, and Guantánamo Bay is no closer to being closed.) In short, Obama is taking a lot of heat from the left, and committing the resources needed to implement a serious strategy in Afghanistan would only make matters worse.

Something had to give, and national security, to which Obama was never committed to begin with, was the obvious choice.

More regarding the current round of race baiting.

Victor Davis Hanson weighs in on the current charges of racism with a column today entitled: The Obsolescence of a Slur. It is well worth reading.

BTW: Attorney General Eric Holder (who cravenly signed off on Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich) infamously called us a nation of cowards because we are allegedly unwilling to discuss racial issues. I wonder if the current discussion is what he had in mind.