George W. Bush and the death of the Reagan Revolution

Ronald Reagan on our global nemesis, Soviet-led Communism: “Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil"?

George W. Bush on our global nemesis Islam: “Islam is a religion of peace".

Has George Bush inherited the mantle of Ronald Reagan as the leader of conservatism in America? He is certainly America’s President but is he unmaking the very thing he seeks to defend, namely America itself, by failing to see reality? In this fallen world of ours conflict is inevitable and unending. The challenge is not to eliminate all enemies once and for all, since this is impossible, but to identify and deal with the enemies you face in your time. Fighting the wrong foes or aligning with the wrong friends can be fatal. Where are we now?

One of the first steps in dealing with any problem is identification of what the problem is. Ronald Reagan identified Communism as an enemy. George Bush has labeled terrorism as an enemy. History has proven Reagan correct; Communism was an enemy due to the rhetoric, actions, and the capabilities of its proponents. Its own founding documents, from Marx, through Lenin and Stalin left a trail of its intentions and its actual manifestations did not contradict these intentions. The reality of the countries where it was imposed testified to its fruits including: no private property, no freedom of faith, state-imposed starvation, gulags, etc. Reagan called Communism ‘evil’ because, based on our American standards and the evidence, it was evil. Reagan may have wished Communism was something else but the reality prevented fantasies. Our nation was under a mortal threat and a sizable portion of America’s intellectual establishment answered the call to arms.

George Bush has rallied the United States to fight the enemy of terrorism and more recently has made worldwide democratization the strategic means to fight this enemy. Is terrorism really an enemy? Many others have written effectively that terrorism is a means to achieve an end; in other words it is a tactic. This is not to say we shouldn’t combat terrorism at a tactical level. Not only should airports be secured which Bush has zealously overseen, going so far as to frisk 80 year old women as much as young Arab males, but also our border should be secured and our immigration laws enforced, which Bush has been loath to do. Above the tactical level every conflict has a strategic level – that is the overarching objectives that must be achieved to ensure victory. Bush’s strategy has most recently been articulated as democracy and freedom for all. This time Bush has made a benign process, democracy, a goal when it often leads to the very denial of freedom he purports to desire. Now that Iraqi democracy is leading towards Islamic Law, Sharia, by definition non-Muslim Iraqis have less freedom and we in the West are in greater danger of terrorism. So Bush has created a series of goals that contradict each other. If reducing terrorism is a goal then Islamic ‘Democracy’ will not be good since Islam demands submission of the infidel by any means possible. Likewise if maximizing freedom is a goal then Islamic ‘Democracy’ will not be good since infidels are second class citizens at best under Islamic Law. By making freedom and democracy and the elimination of terrorism goals without dealing with Islam is folly. Substitute ‘Nazism’ for ‘Islam’ and ‘Jew’ for ‘Infidel’ and you’ll get the point.

Why Islam is an enemy of the West is derived from a non-idealized reading of Islam’s sacred texts. Islam cannot be contrary to its own founding documents; the documents that describe what Muslims believe to be the inerrant revelation of Allah through Mohammed, the Koran; and the life of Mohammed and the early history of Islam, the Hadith, Sirah, etc. These are Islam since Allah said Islam is unchangeable. What has been revealed through Islam’s prophet Mohammed IS Islam. Islam cannot be that which we would like it to be if that which we would like it to be contradicts the original revelation. This is simple logic.

What is in Islam’s sacred texts is widely available over the internet. I recommend you go directly to the source documents and see for yourself. Be warned the structure of the Koran is very convoluted and repetitive so it is tedious to spend any time on. For an organized translation of Islam’s sacred texts see the web site www.prophetofdoom.net. The creator focuses firstly on presenting Islam’s own writings in an organized fashion, then in comparing Islam to Christianity and the comparison reveals diametrically opposed Gods. Allah and Yaweh (the God of the Bible) can not be the same. It is hard not to see Islam as a totalitarian political system in addition to being religious. As a matter of fact, its claim to divine origins makes its totalitarian political aspects all the more dangerous since they are non-negotiable from the perspective of Muslims; at least Muslims who follow the commands of their Prophet. Infidels (non-Muslims) are on very thin ice when they decry people like Osama Bin Laden as not being true Muslims when he is simply following the example of his prophet. Bin Laden can be called many things but heretical Muslim is not one of them. We in the West can be so arrogant in projecting our own sensibilities onto everyone else. The libertine ways of the West are anathema to Islam. They are also anathema to many Christians and Traditionalists though we have a dramatically different view on restoration than does Islam. For those who think Islam has no interest in the non-Muslim world wake up. Muslims are much less small minded than many attribute them to be. The "Muslim World" according to Islam is not the Middle East. It is the whole world. Doesn’t this make sense since Allah is believed to be the God of the whole world? The Koran describes the world as being in two camps; either at peace or at war. The "at peace" portion is where Islam rules inviolate. The "at war" portion is where Islam does not (yet) rule. Islam does not project this situation as permanent but as one to be overcome through jihad to make the whole world at peace; i.e. under the rule of Islam.

President Bush currently exists in a world of fantasy where what is true is what we want to be true rather than what is. He believes religion is good without dirtying his hands with the specific mandates of the belief system. He believes democracy is good regardless of what substantive results the process of democracy realizes. He and his strongest supporters, often referred to as neoconservatives are motivated by America the idea rather than America the real. This abstract America appeals to both the business elites who see nationalism as a competitor placing limits on markets and to the Leftists whose romantic views of the brotherhood of man has led them to create and propagate multiculturalism as a non-negotiable and virtuous end. The real America of Americans of flesh and blood and traditional Christian values is caught in the middle of this juggernaut. On one side our "conservative" party wants an open stream of workers into the country to keep labor cheap and profits high, and wanting the freedom to outsource other jobs to wherever it most benefits them, all the while having the blood of America to be their insurance policy if the foreign country infringes on their interests. On the other side our liberal party wants to recast predominately White, Christian America with a new amorphous American who has no identity from which to resist more cultural "progress". No roots and the largest tree will be unable to resist much of a storm.

Ronald Reagan’s reality has given way to George Bush’s wishful thinking. In saner times the opposition party would adjust to fill this ideological vacuum. Now the opposition party is trapped by its own ideology on the other side of reason. The synthesis in our current political dialectic is always leftward since the thesis is always leftist ideology and the antithesis Republican/Rovian compromising. The current Republican political strategy is to surrender ideology to Democrats but then win elections by being more "reasonable" in the administration of these liberal policies. Republicans celebrate when a Howard Dean (or similar juvenile dimwit) is pegged to lead the opposition party. How can a patriotic American cheer this? Shouldn’t we want two responsible political movements rather than one or, more accurately, none. This is the irony; as Republicans continue to win elections America moves ever leftward in its polity. And liberals hate Bush even though he gives them most every thing they want albeit at a slower pace. What a world.

The Reagan Revolution was a true, though temporary, reversal of the then unstoppable march of Liberalism through the American political landscape. He called our enemies and hindrances out, be they Communism, Big Government, Liberalism, etc., and this enabled constructive change and opposition to occur. George W. Bush has embraced Big Government through Compassionate Conservatism, embraced multiculturalism through open borders, embraced the mantle of Wilson, not Coolidge, through his messianic proclamations regarding world democracy and America’s duty to bring it about, and embraced our biggest outward adversary, Islam, by calling it a religion of peace over and over again.

The damage George W. Bush and neoconservatism has caused to conservatism is hard to measure since additionally many of Bush’s strongest supporters (including his Vice President) advocate many of the progressive innovations in the American cultural scene, including alternate definitions of marriage. America the Autonomous, America the Strong, America the Free was no accident of history. It was created and maintained by a very particular people, culture, and religion under just the right circumstances. It can, with great effort, be maintained into the future but it cannot withstand all mismanagement. Much that has now been damaged must be healed and nurtured back to its healthy state.

The neconservative view seems to be that America is the ultimate commodity. To them it is not only the perfect export to the world, to be forced upon its recipients if they do not accept it voluntarily, but it also is infinitely indestructible internally. No amount of immigration or ‘free’ trade or ‘progressive’ cultural change can undermine its existence. It is not protected like a fragile ecosystem but beaten like a rented mule. It is Yucca Mountain rather than Walden Pond. Both concepts defy history and logic. No culture can withstand an open ended assault on itself and still be itself. Likewise, the arrogant attempt to impose ‘America’ on all by force invites more of the former since we open ourselves up to embrace all we dislocate. America may ultimately survive with its name intact but little else.

Maybe that’s what the advocates of the New World Order have wanted all along.