Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, Space

Why Space Policy Is A Disaster

27 Comments

This opinion piece by Republican Doug McKinnon has every false trope and misplaced assumption in the debate on display. As is often the case with opinion pieces, opinions are put forth with the certainty that should be reserved for actual, you know…facts. It starts off wrong in the very opening sentence:

Because of the 2008 presidential election, our nation’s human spaceflight program is at a perilous crossroad.

The implicit assumption here is that our nation’s “human spaceflight program” would be just fine if we weren’t having a presidential election, but anyone who has been following it closely knows that it has many deep and fundamental problems that are entirely independent of who the next president will be, or even the fact that we will have a new president. NASA has bitten off an architecture that will not be financially sustainable, and may not even be developable, and for which it doesn’t have sufficient budget. That would be true if the president suspended elections this year (as some moonbats still probably expect him to do).

Beyond that, by framing it this way, there is an implicit assumption that “our nation’s human spaceflight program” is identically equal not only to NASA’s plans for human spaceflight in general, but for the specific disastrous course that they’ve chosen. This false consciousness comes through clearly in the very next sentence:

While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all have made allusions to supporting the program, none has made it a priority.

Emphasis mine. I don’t expect any better from Democrats–they are, after all, the party of big government, but just once in a while, I wish that I could hear something from a Republican (other than Newt Gingrich) on this subject that isn’t brain dead.

Just once, I’d like to hear a Republican talk not about “the program,” but rather, about the nation’s human spaceflight industry, and how we implement new policies to make this nation into a true spacefaring one. The latter doesn’t mean building large rockets to send a couple crew of civil servants up a couple times a year, at horrific cost per mission. It means creating the means by which large numbers of people can visit space, and go to the moon, and beyond, with their own funds for their own purposes. It means building an in-space infrastructure that allows us to affordably work in, and inhabit, cis-lunar space. It should be (as it should have been when the president first announced the new policy a little over four years ago) about how America goes into space, not about how NASA goes into space. But Mr. McKinnon is clearly stuck in a sixties mind set, as evidenced by the next graf, admonishing Senator Obama’s apparent (at least to him, if not the rest of us) short sightedness.

Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Sen. Obama of the sage and relevant words spoken by a president with whom he has been compared on occasion. On Sept. 12, 1962, at Rice University, President John F. Kennedy addressed the importance of the United States having a vibrant and preeminent space program. “We mean to be part of it we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond. Our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to become the world’s leading spacefaring nation.”

Hey, I’m all in favor of us becoming (or remaining) the world’s leading spacefaring nation. But I don’t think that the word “spacefaring” means what he thinks it means. Clearly, he is stuck in the Apollo era (hardly surprising, when the NASA administrator himself describes his plans as “Apollo on steroids”). His myopia and Apollo nostagia is further displayed in the next paragraph.

No matter who is our next president, he or she is either going to have to buy in completely to the premise of that young president, or stand aside and watch as other nations lay claim to the promise of space. There is no middle ground. John F. Kennedy understood it then, and the People’s Republic of China, with its ambitious manned space program run by its military, understands it now. Preeminence in space translates to economic, scientific, educational and national security advantages.

Sigh…

“There is no middle ground.” What a perfect encapsulation of the sterile nature of space policy debate. Ignoring that sentence, and the nonsensical unsupported characterization of the Chinese “program” (there’s that word again) as “ambitious,” one can agree with every word in this paragraph and still think that the current plans are not going to result in, or maintain, “preeminence in space.” And particularly, the notion that ESAS/Constellation provides anything with regard to national security advantages is ludicrous. This is one of the two key areas on which it has been most harshly and appropriately criticized as completely ignoring the Aldridge Commission report.

Sorry, I don’t accept that “there is no middle ground.” There are many potential policy initiatives that could be implemented that would be vastly more effective in giving us “preeminence in space,” than the current one. It’s not ESAS or nothing, despite the next paragraph. This is called the fallacy of the excluded middle. This is stealing a rhetorical base.

And what to make of this next?

With regard to the space shuttle, the International Space Station, Orion and Ares, the new president must make three words part of his or her space policy: “Stay the course.” On Jan. 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced a “new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system.” With Orion and Ares as the centerpiece of this new direction, it is essential that that there be no delays caused by partisan politics.

What does this even mean? Is Mr. McKinnon unaware that the Shuttle is due to be retired in two years? Does he know that there are no plans for ISS beyond a decade from now? What “course” is he proposing that we “stay”?

And again with the false assertion that only Ares and Orion can allow us to “explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system.” Not only is this not true, but there are many much better ways to do so, most of which were extensively analyzed by some of the best people in the space industry, but which were completely ignored when the new administrator came in to implement his own pet ideas. Those ideas remain out there, and will probably be reexamined under a new administration and a new administrator.

I do agree with this next statement, as far as it goes:

If a Democrat is our next president, he or she cannot look at the Orion and Ares programs as a “Bush” or “Republican” initiative to be scrapped.

Though not being a great fan of George Bush, I agree that to scrap a program simply because it is his would be stupid and partisan (not that this would keep it from happening, of course). But there are so many other, better reasons to scrap these plans, that the point is probably moot.

Should the next president decide to delay or cancel our next generation spacecraft and rockets for partisan reasons, he or she will be condemning the United States to second-class status in space for decades to come.

To this, I can only say “horse manure.”

Delays or cancellations will cause a massive loss of capability as the work force with the knowledge and expertise to take us back to the moon and beyond will retire or move on to other careers.

Again, he seems to ignore the fact that delays (and potential cancellation) are already cooked into the dough of “the program.” They will happen completely independently of who the next president is, because “the program” is fundamentally flawed.

And as for worrying about “the work force with the knowledge and expertise to take us back to the moon and beyond” retiring, this is sadly hilarious. That horse left the barn many years ago. There is almost no one remaining in industry who knows how to get us to the moon, let alone “beyond.” Everyone who was involved with Apollo (the last flight of which occurred over thirty-five years ago) is dead, or retired. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that the program is floundering. Rather than sit down and take a fresh, twenty-first century approach to space exploration, and (much more importantly) space utilization, the kids who grew up with Apollo are simply trying to replicate what the Great Space Fathers did. They imagine that by building their own big, new rockets, they can somehow recreate the glory of their childhood. But they weren’t involved–they were just observers. I’ve likened this attitude of redoing Apollo to cargo cult engineering. I think that remains a pretty accurate assessment.

The United States has committed itself to this new direction. The next president must ratify such a commitment.

Again, this false equating of ESAS with “this new direction,” is nonsensical. And we aren’t even committed as a nation to the Vision for Space Exploration itself. It would certainly be nice to see the next president continue the support of sending humans beyond earth orbit, but it would also be even nicer to see him (or, in the unlikely event, her) reexamine the specific implementation of such a plan, and to expand it far beyond NASA budgets, to encompass federal space policy in general, including military and commercial aspects, as the Aldridge Commission urged, and which NASA has utterly ignored, with the Bush administration’s apparent acquiescence.

The piece cluelessly ends up with one more attempt at scaremongering the rubes who are not familiar with the nature of the Chinese space program:

Should our space program flounder, Chinese astronauts will establish the first bases on the moon, and the American people will be the poorer for our lack of leadership.

Even accepting the nonsense that the Chinese are going to establish bases on the moon at all, let alone the first ones, there is no support at all for why this will make the American people poorer. It’s easily seen how it makes the Chinese people poorer, given that the Chinese, to the degree that they plan to go to the moon at all, are using a ridiculously high cost and very slow approach, but since NASA’s approach is similar, it seems that continuing on this flawed path is what will make the American people poorer. And keep them earthbound.

As I said, this is a perfect example of the false assumptions and false choices that permeate what accounts for the moribund state of the space policy debate in this country. Until we start to discuss space intelligently (including a bedrock discussion of the actual goals, which should not be to do Apollo again), it’s unlikely that we’ll ever get sensible federal policy.

[Update a few minutes later]

Shorter Doug McKinnon: The president’s space policy is not only wonderful, but it is our only chance to lead in space, and anyone who opposes it, for any reason, partisan or otherwise, is dooming Americans to toil in the Chinese rice paddies. So get with the program.

Is that succinct enough? It doesn’t matter that it’s complete nonsense. And completely unsupported by anything resembling actual policy analysis, and displays no evidence that he even understands the policy. Doug wrote it, and he’s a Republican, so it must be so.

While I don’t agree with their posts necessarily, (and the chances that I will be voting for a Democrat for president, regardless of what lies they tell me about their space policy, are nil), at least Bill White and Ferris Valyn have applied a little thought to the situation, unlike Doug. But then, they have the advantage of actually being interested in seeing us become a spacefaring nation. It’s not at all clear what Doug’s motivations are. Perhaps (as noted in comments) his being an aerospace industry lobbyist has something to do with it. I wouldn’t normally indulge in such an ad hominem attack, but I can’t find anything else in the piece that might explain his strange positions. That one makes the most sense, by Occam’s Razor.

[Late evening update]

Mark Whittington (who loves the piece–more solid evidence, if not courtroom proof, of its cluelessness) once again demonstrates his inability to comprehend simple written English:

Apparently there isn’t a single syllable of MacKinnon’s piece that doesn’t make Rand Simberg spitting mad.

In other words, in his hilariously stupid hyperbole, he didn’t understand the meaning of this sentence, from above:

Though not being a great fan of George Bush, I agree that to scrap a program simply because it is his would be stupid and partisan (not that this would keep it from happening, of course).

While most of my readers don’t need the clue, Mark clearly does. That’s what’s called “agreeing with a part of the piece.” Which means that there were at least a few syllables that didn’t make me “spitting mad” (not to imply, of course, that there were any syllables that made me that way, let alone every one).

And of course, as also usual, he can’t spell, being unable to distinguish “complimentary” from “complementary.” Not to mention “unweildy.” But I guess he doesn’t mind beclowning himself, as usual. Mark, get Firefox. It has spell check built in. It won’t help with the homophones, but it would have caught the other one.

And that’s the Mark that we all know and (OK, not so much…) love.

Political Commentary

A Job For Diogenes

1 Comment

Ah, New York:

…should Governor Paterson resign, his place will be taken by Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno …

…who is still, I believe, under investigation by the FBI for his business dealings.

Somewhere down there in the chain of command of New York State politics, there must surely be an honest person. It could take a while before we work our way down to him, though.

History, Political Commentary, Satire

War Critics Decry Interminable And Unwinnable Conflict

41 Comments

January 15th, 1945

WASHINGTON (Routers) With the “Allied” forces continuing to be bogged down in the Ardennes Forest, many are questioning Roosevelt administration war policies, the unreasonable length of the war, and even whether or not it can be won.

The 7th Army’s VI Corps is waging a desperate, and perhaps futile battle with German troops, surrounded on three sides in the Alsace region. A whole month after the beginning of the renewed German offensive, with almost twenty-thousand American troops dead in this battle alone, there remains no clear end in sight, or hope that the American lines can be closed.

There are serious questions about the competence of Generals Bradley and Patton, concerns that were only heightened shortly after the beginning of the battle, when two armies from Bradley’s army group were removed from his command and placed under that of the British General Montgomery. General Montgomery’s comments in a press conference a week ago have served only to buttress such legitimate doubts. He didn’t even mention their names in describing the limited efforts to recapture lost ground, that remains unsuccessful, with the Germans continuing to take the initiative.

Many point out that these lengthy battles, and lengthy wars, are somehow indicative of a fundamental failure of American policy, not just in waging the war, but in the very decision to enter into it.

“It’s not just that we’re a whole month into this battle with no clear resolution or exit strategy. In a few more months, this war will have gone on as long as the Civil War,” said one Republican critic of the administration. “And that one was Americans against Americans. We should have expected to do much better against Germans. After all, this war has now gone on twice as long as World War I, when we mopped up the Kaiser in a year and a half.” He went on, “It’s clearly the fault of this Roosevelt administration, that lied us into war, and then botched it. I’ll bet that had Tom Dewey won the election a couple months ago, he would have exercised his judgment by immediately implementing his policy of not having entered the war.”

Others disagree. One administration spokesman has said on background that this seems like flawed logic.

“One can’t judge war progress by a calendar. Wars aren’t run on a schedule, and every one is different,” he pointed out. “And neither can one judge the progress of a battle that way, or by the casualty count. Often the heaviest fighting occurs just before victory. Our heaviest losses at Normandy were just before we took the beach and the cliffs.”

“Yes, the fighting is fierce in the Ardennes now, but Hitler is waging a war on two fronts, and he’s down to young boys and old men as soldiers. We will simply have to outlast him, and I’m confident that we will start making serious progress into Germany in a month.”

But war opponents will have none of it.

“This administration has been telling us we’ve been winning for two and a half years, ever since Midway,” said the leader of one of the prominent anti-war groups. After over three years of killing and terror, it’s time to stop the lies, and the war.”

Economics, Philosophy, Political Commentary

Another Strike Against Him

17 Comments

Why is Barack Obama against drug legalization?

I’m running through the issues, and I can’t find a single one on which I agree with him, other than that blacks should take more responsibility for their own lives.

That’s great but, sorry, it’s just not enough. Just another non-federalist fascist.

This comment probably explains his position:

The only black dude and admitted former drug experimenter in the race cannot afford to look soft on drugs.

Yup. New politics.

Can someone pass the Kool-Aid?

Political Commentary

John Kerry, Nuanced Foreign Policy Analyst

12 Comments

I never understood back in 2004 (or any other time, for that matter) why people told me that John Kerry was such a brilliant man, when it was always clear to me that he was a pompous, arrogant windbag, and a certifiable moron.

I think that this bears out my thesis:

Kerry isn’t just stereotyping blacks. He is stereotyping Muslims too. And he is drawing an equivalence between American blacks, a racial minority in one country, and Middle Eastern Muslims, a religious majority in a whole region. To John Kerry, it seems, all “disenfranchised” people look alike.

Never mind that, as Greenwald points out, “Arab Muslims [are] none too happy with their black countrymen in northern Africa.” Never mind that in some African countries, notably Sudan and Mauritania, Arab Muslims still enslave blacks.

To Kerry, it seems, all “oppressed peoples” look alike. The man has all the intellectual subtlety of a third-rate ethnic studies professor.

I think that “third-rate” is an overrating.

And on a related subject, can anyone explain to me how blacks have somehow acquired this bizarre mythology that Christians enslaved them, and that Muslims are their liberators?

Anyone familiar with the history of slavery know that the blacks were sold into it by the Arab traders, and that it was only abolished due to moral pressure from (wait for it) Christians.

Which brings me to the next subject, which is the general disconnect from reality of the so-called “black liberation theology” of which, apparently, Obama’s church is one of the biggest proponents.

So. OK. The Senator says that he doesn’t agree with everything preached in his church. Let’s get down to brass talks.

What journalist has the stones to call him on it?

I’d like to see someone ask him questions like this:

Senator, your church believes that Jesus was black. Do you agree? If not, what do you believe his ethnicity was?

Your church believes that the “white church in America” (whatever that means) supported slavery and segregation, and that it is the Anti-Christ. Do you agree with that assessment?

Your church supports a “liberation theology,” which is generally understood to be a form of Marxism justified by the Bible. Do you share the support of your church for that ideology?

If you don’t agree with your church on these issues, which seem both extreme and fundamental, how can you remain a member of it, when there are so many alternatives? Certainly most Americans would not.

Do you believe that nurturing these sorts of beliefs are helpful to African Americans? If not, why do you continue to implicitly support them by continuing to attend and donate funds to your church?

Philosophy, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

Redefining Dead

6 Comments

It’s a couple weeks old, but here’s a very interesting article on the current debate among medical ethicists of when someone should be considered dead for the purpose of organ donation:

Truog is one of a handful of vocal critics who believe the medical community is misleading the public — and deluding itself — with an arbitrary definition of death. The debate, which is being fought largely in academic journals, has important implications for the modern enterprise of transplantation, which prolonged the life of more than 28,000 Americans last year. Truog and other critics believe that changing the rules — and the bright-line concept of death that underlies them — could mean saving more of the 6,500 Americans who die every year waiting for an organ.

…This debate exposes a jarring collision: On the one hand, there is the view that life and death are clear categories; on the other, there is the view that death, like life, is a process. Common sense — and the transplant community — suggest that death is a clear category. Truog and other critics suggest that this is to ignore reality.

“They think, ‘We can’t remove these organs unless we decide that you’re dead,”‘ says Truog, “so the project becomes gerrymandering the criteria we use to call people dead.”

Many people assume that we have good criteria for determining when someone is dead, but we don’t and never have. I wrote about this several years ago, during the Ted Williams cryonics controversy:

There’s no point at which we can objectively and scientifically say, “now the patient is dead — there is no return from this state,” because as we understand more about human physiology, and experience more instances of extreme conditions of human experiences, we discover that a condition we once thought was beyond hope can routinely be recovered to a full and vibrant existence.

Death is thus not an absolute, but a relative state, and appropriate medical treatment is a function of current medical knowledge and available resources. What constituted more-than-sufficient grounds for declaration of death in the past might today mean the use of heroic, or even routine, medical procedures for resuscitation. Even today, someone who suffers a massive cardiac infarction in the remote jungles of Bolivia might be declared dead, because no means is readily available to treat him, whereas the same patient a couple blocks from Cedars-Sinai in Beverly Hills might be transported to the cardiac intensive-care unit, and live many years more.

I find it heartening that this debate is finally occurring, rather than the medical community dogmatically keeping its head planted firmly in the sand. Because it lends further credence to the concept of suspension (cryonic or otherwise), and clarifies whether or not cryonics patients are alive or dead. The only useful definition of death is information death (e.g., cremation, or complete deterioration of the remains). As long as the structure remains in place, the patient hasn’t died–he’s just extremely ill, to the point at which he’s non-functional and unable to be revived with current technology.

In fact, given that this debate is about organ donation, it’s quite applicable to cryonics. In a very real sense, cryonics is the ultimate organ donation (and in fact it’s treated that way under some state’s laws). You are effectively donating your whole body (or just your head, in the case of a neurosuspension) to your future self.

But it will continue to tie the legal system up in knots, and declaring cryonics patients to be alive would be a problem under the current cryonics protocols, because unless one is wealthy, the procedure is paid for with a life insurance policy. If you’re not declared dead, then you don’t get the money to preserve yourself. But if you don’t preserve yourself, you’ll eventually be clearly dead by any criteria, as your body decomposes. At which point the policy would pay off, far too late to preserve your life.

And of course, if a cryonics patient isn’t considered dead, then the heirs won’t get any inheritance at all. Cryonics patients already have enough fights with relatives over the amount that they’ll inherit due to the cost of the suspension. Keeping them legally alive will only make this situation worse. We really need to come up with some creative new laws to deal with this, but I suspect it’s not a very high priority among legislatures who, when they deal with cryonics at all, generally instead of facilitating it, attempt to outlaw it or regulate it out of existence. And that’s not likely to change any time soon, regardless of the state of the debate in the medical ethics community.

Political Commentary

A Disaster Brewing For The Democrats?

27 Comments

In Denver.

Denver is not equipped to handle any convention scenario other than a coronation, and certainly not the most (potentially) contentious national convention in 40 years.

It is important to point out that the state of Colorado, and the city of Denver, is currently nearly completely controlled by Democrats at every level of government. This puts these locals in a box, politically and from a law enforcement standpoint. This sets up a scenario similar to Seattle 1999 WTO debacle. I happened to be living in downtown Seattle during that awful experience, and what stands out is that the city and state (even the Federal Government at that time) were all controlled by Democrats at every level, even police chief. That meant they were politically unwilling to confront their own in the days leading up to the summit: that is, the anti-globalism/WTO protestors, greenies, and union members that were planning major marches, civil disobedience, and even outright mischief.

The reason is simple, they didn’t want to alienate their own constituencies by seeming too heavy handed. The result was that by the time they had to crackdown, it was too late and with police state tactics, water cannons, gas cannisters, police in riot gear, and dusk to dawn curfews on the streets. There is still a lot of these scenes on YouTube and many disenchanted lefties are promising a repeat in Denver this year. Any variation of this would be a potential public relations disaster for the Democrat nominee in trying to win Colorado, and one that would virtually ensure not only a McCain victory in the state, but a stigmatization that could likely lead to major setbacks for the Democrat party in Colorado for years to come.

[Early afternoon update]

It’s already starting, and it’s still March:

Spagnuolo has been meeting monthly with city officials for a year, hoping to win the right to use Civic Center throughout the convention. He says 50,000 war protesters are coming for a march from Civic Center to the Pepsi Center on Aug. 24.

He said Thursday that he would not respect the host committee’s permit and would occupy the park, even if it forced police to intervene.

Referring to the $50 million in federal security money slated for the convention, Spagnuolo said Denver police would need “$25 million to protect the Pepsi Center and $25 million to protect Civic Center.”

I have no sympathy. When your political party encourages and welcomes brown shirterry (as long as it’s aimed at “neocons” and “globalists,” and “capitalists,” and other evil people), this is what you get. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

[Update at 1 PM]

More bad news for the donkeys:

In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they’ll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they’ll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won’t vote. Sixty percent of Obama voters say they’ll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won’t vote.

That’s already starting to show up in the national polling, where McCain is way ahead of both Hillary! and Obama. As I’ve been saying for months, the Dems have set themselves for a shellacking, because both of their lead candidates are unelectable in the general, and the internecine strife just makes it worse. Their only hope lies in a brokered convention, and a different candidate, and even then, it’s unlikely that they’ll recover.

Political Commentary

Sauce For The Gander

3 Comments

Clarice Feldman has some useful advice for Howard Dean:

Have Carter rerun the entire damn primary before June 7. Really, Carter can do this.

I suppose right now you’re saying,” Where did he get this idea?” I’ll tell you, friend. it came to me listening to Carl Levin who asked, “How can you make sure that hundreds of thousands , perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?”

See, I read that and remembered that Carter does this all the time. He’s the election certifier extraordinaire. From his supervision of the 1990 election in the Dominican Republic to his oversight of the Chavez recall collection in Venezuela he’s become the one man in the world who can, with the acquiescence of the entire world, put a gold stamp of approval and purity on a completely unfair and corrupt election. Fraud in counting votes? In registering voters? Discrepancies between the number of cast ballots and voter registration lists? Jiggered machines? Doesn’t matter. The guy will keep his eyes and ears closed and stamp the entire thing kosher.

See, what I’m saying, is that there’s no way you can resolve the present contretemps without at least half your party claiming the result is unfair. They will always believe the nomination was “stolen” from their candidate and given the players and so-called rules of your party’s nomination process, they will have a point. So why not go whole hog. Have the process planned, overseen and supervised by the man who’s given his stamp of approval to crooked elections everywhere else on earth. He was YOUR president, after all. He’s good enough for East Timor and not for his own party?

Maybe he could even win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Philosophy, Political Commentary

Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

4 Comments

John Tabin writes that, regardless of the election outcome, the next president will be a fascist:

JOHN McCAIN IS a huge admirer of TR. His career has been marked by an instinctive enthusiasm for regulation. He brags of a military career chosen “for patriotism, not for profit,” clearly viewing civilian life as debased.

Goldberg’s Afterword, “The Tempting of Conservatism,” holds up McCain and the “National Greatness Conservatives” who backed him in 2000 as an example of how progressivism can enthrall conservatives. (Possible good news: McCain has praised free markets in the course of this campaign — for the first time in his political career, according to McCain biographer Matt Welch.)

Hillary Clinton’s calls in the ’90s for a “new politics of meaning” and for the state to act as the “village” that raises our children has deeply totalitarian implications that Goldberg discusses at length. In 1996 she declared that “there isn’t really any such thing as someone else’s child.” Assessing her worldview, Goldberg labels Clinton “The First Lady of Liberal Fascism.”

Barack Obama’s enormous rhetorical talents have already earned him an extremely creepy personality cult. His wife declares that her husband “will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism… And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Philosophy, Political Commentary

Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

John Tabin writes that, regardless of the election outcome, the next president will be a fascist:

JOHN McCAIN IS a huge admirer of TR. His career has been marked by an instinctive enthusiasm for regulation. He brags of a military career chosen “for patriotism, not for profit,” clearly viewing civilian life as debased.

Goldberg’s Afterword, “The Tempting of Conservatism,” holds up McCain and the “National Greatness Conservatives” who backed him in 2000 as an example of how progressivism can enthrall conservatives. (Possible good news: McCain has praised free markets in the course of this campaign — for the first time in his political career, according to McCain biographer Matt Welch.)

Hillary Clinton’s calls in the ’90s for a “new politics of meaning” and for the state to act as the “village” that raises our children has deeply totalitarian implications that Goldberg discusses at length. In 1996 she declared that “there isn’t really any such thing as someone else’s child.” Assessing her worldview, Goldberg labels Clinton “The First Lady of Liberal Fascism.”

Barack Obama’s enormous rhetorical talents have already earned him an extremely creepy personality cult. His wife declares that her husband “will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism… And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”