Of course, this is Townhall’s site; they can do with it whatever they want, and more power to them.

But the content of my brain is mine, and I think I can find other venues in which I can blog if I decide to continue.

There is also another issue. My blog has always been primarily political in nature, and at this point I really have no further interest in the presidential campaign. For a political blog, that’s kind of the Kiss of Death. I don’t think it’s simply an issue with me, either. I’ve noticed a significant drop in the number of comments on other member blogs, as well as on the main columns. It looks to me like many conservatives are disengaging themselves from the rest of the political debate this presidential election year as the available remaining choices are deemed simply unacceptable. The fun is gone. It’s hard to stay engaged in a process in which you don’t care about the outcome.

One thing in life I’ve learned is to never say “never”. I may pop in from time to time to see what’s going on. But for now, at least, this will be my last essay at the Island.

Update 3/5/08, especially for Jimmy C, at his request.

 

While my daughter and son-in-law are taking a cruise this week -- sponsored by his company -- I'm dog-sitting their whiny, needy, gelded, obnoxious and totally unmasculine Chihuahua. I mentioned that I couldn't be seen with this loser of a dog (I'm more of a German Shepherd kinda guy) as it would detract from my macho image, and JC -- exhibiting his streak of pure evil and meanness -- challenged me to post a pic of me and this wharf rat.

 

Because I'm so self-assured in my own masculinity, here it is:

 

 

Next week: me cleaning some of my many guns. (Just kidding. About the pic, not the guns)

 

 

About 35 years ago I realized there were striking similarities between the historical arc the United States seemed to be following and the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Obviously, the Roman collapse is a huge and complex subject; Gibbons’ definitive book on the subject is 1312 pages, according to Amazon.com, so obviously this essay can’t plumb nearly those depths. Further, many scholars over the last 300 years have advanced various theories as to the reasons for the fall; it’s a complex subject with no easy or pat answers. But there are some very key elements we should consider.

One of the most striking factors in the decline of Rome is the string of incompetent, inept, and/or corrupt rulers in power during this period, and how their actions and decisions led to results that were disastrous for the nation-state. This trend was briefly interrupted by the reign of Constantine, who divided the Empire into an Eastern and a Western component, each autonomous, and moved his capitol to the Eastern Empire in Constantinople in modern Turkey. This part of the Empire survived successfully for a thousand more years, transformed into the Byzantine Empire, and only finally succumbed to the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

The Western Empire, however, continued its steady decline.

Another factor to consider is the effect of uncontrolled influxes of ethnic groups foreign to the native Roman culture. Rome had a policy of allowing conquered peoples to find paths to citizenship, and over time the requirements were gradually but continuously loosened. The movement of the Huns into what is now Hungary but was then a northern province wasn’t a Mongol-horde style invasion as is popularly portrayed in movies, but was actually a more gradual and primarily nomadic occurrence. Though Attila did, indeed, successfully invade Italy, it was to enforce claims to better treatment of his people who were already established within the Empire. Later and more violent invasions, such as that of the Visigoths led by Alaric in 410 AD, were merely the death knell for an empire that had already weakened to the point where it was a mere shadow of its former power.

Yet another contributing factor was that from the height of its powers under Julius and Augustus until its demise, the citizens of Rome demanded – and received – ever more and greater benefits, with ever lessening responsibilities. The circuses sometimes were in operation non-stop to entertain the masses. Military service was no longer required, and the point was reached where the Empire’s military required Germanic and other conquered peoples’ presence to fill out their ranks. This made it impossible for the Western Empire to maintain the control over their far-flung territories that had made the Empire previously viable, further weakening them to invasion, and even simple deterioration of the infrastructure. No longer did “all roads lead to Rome”.

By now, I’m sure the parallels I mentioned earlier are becoming apparent. Let’s examine some American history for context.

In political theory there’s an event known as a “change election” in which a body politic experiences a fundamental shift in its ideological or philosophical underpinnings. Because it takes time for the effect of any election to evidence itself, these events can typically only be identified retrospectively. One that is generally acknowledged is the election of Dwight Eisenhower, and the reason is that during his entire administration he took no action to reverse the policies of FDR that were previously considered unconstitutional, thereby enshrining the Rooseveltian policies as a permanent – and new – part of the American baseline for “constitutional” government action. The reach of government power had been extended under FDR and never reversed.

Though it’s tempting to categorize Reagan’s victory or the 1994 Gingrich Revolution as “change elections”, I don’t believe either qualify, because even though there was some success in rolling back governmental power, it proved temporary and the underlying expansion of government power continues, under both major political parties regardless of which is in power.

The “change election” concept is one we see Obama playing cleverly in his call for “change”, whether consciously or not. The problem is that we also see Republicans essentially doing the same thing, though not as blatantly. Bush and the GOP promoting a plan for a “tax rebate” that’s nothing of the sort, but merely an attempt to buy votes. GOP politicians trying to pre-empt the Democrats by getting in front of them on policies – such as global warming initiatives and oil exploration bans – that should be anathema.

As I’ve written so many times, all one needs do is look at California to see the direction the rest of the country is heading; then look again at the parallels to the Roman Empire I outlined at the start of the essay.

In the last 35 years I’ve seen nothing to change my mind about the similarities in evidence. Worse, I see the process accelerating. In my opinion we’ve actually reached a point in history at which a “change election” is desperately needed if this country’s original principles are to have any chance of being restored, even in a pale imitation of their previous incarnation.

The only glimmers of hope I’ve seen lately are the elections of Bobby Jindahl in Louisiana and Sarah Palin in Alaska. Both ran on very traditional conservative platforms of smaller government and individual responsibility, and both were elected in landslides. Jindahl’s is particularly significant, because Louisiana is traditionally a liberal Democrat stronghold.

These people, and others like them, need to be elevated to the national arena and given the opportunity to make their marks on the national scene. The offerings we’re getting now, from both parties, are just more of the same old same old, and are committed to driving the bus of this country off the cliff. The only thing they argue about is the speed at which we should smash through the guardrail.

Meanwhile, the people sit around ordering their Domino’s while staring at American Idol and the Superbowl.

Bread and circuses.

The first election campaign in which I could legally vote was Nixon’s 1972 re-election, and as a proud conservative, registered Republican, and Vietnam veteran (a very unpopular war) I not only voted for him but participated as a campaign volunteer and poll watcher in Chicago, where I lived at the time. I felt it would be a cold day in Hell before I’d ever consider voting for a Democrat.

I wonder if the snowshoe concession is still available Down There?

For the first time in my life, I am seriously contemplating voting for whomever the Democrat nominee is this November, rather than facilitating the further transformation of the GOP into the Dem-Lite Party by voting for McCain should he secure the nomination. I’ve been saying that for months, now, so I was way ahead of the Ann Coulter curve for those who might want to accuse me of band-wagonism, and I never say things just to hear myself make noise. Those who know me also know I mean what I say when I say it.

There are several reasons for this. First, McCain is no conservative, and has made a career out of sticking his thumb in the eyes of conservatives and even other members of his own party. If I’d spent the last twenty years calling my neighbor names, keying his car, and throwing poison meat to his dogs, I sure wouldn’t be asking for his vote if I decided to run for city council.

I read McCain as a megalomaniacal power monger totally invested in his own self-aggrandizement. He wants to be Emperor, but will settle for President… for now. I also read his disavowal of his pro-illegal alien positions and opposition to tax cuts as… well, let’s just say “insincere”. He claims to have “a practiced hand at reaching across the aisle”, and that scares me. We’ve had waaaaaaay too much of that lately; witness “scamnesty”, Scrips for Seniors, NCLB, the absurd “tax rebate”, and the rest of the terrible policy proposals that have already come out of the White House over the last few years. Further, his “reaching” has given us McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy; far too much of that “McCain-(liberal name here)” for my taste. If you’re unhappy with Bush, you’ll hate McCain.

His supporters push McCain as a “war hero” who’d make a great war president. First of all, “hero” status isn’t earned by being shot down and captured. Second, polling of Republicans shows that the war is actually their third priority, after the economy and illegal immigration. McCain’s terrible on both those issues.

Further, in my almost 59 years on this planet, there hasn’t been a day when we haven’t been at war, of one kind or another, in many cases with enemies who were far more dangerous than a bunch of disorganized Islamo-fascists (IF) in the Middle East. The Soviet Union had the power to totally destroy us (as well as all of civilization). The idea of subsuming all other issues to the war issue is very dangerous to this country’s future. The IF can’t destroy this country, but we can certainly do it to ourselves if we sacrifice all that makes us a free and viable society on the altar of war hysteria.

As a California resident I live first-hand the results of what happens when the GOP gives up its core principles and values; California is a cautionary lesson for the rest of the country. You don’t want to live in a Californiated country; it’s not pretty.

Occasionally, the country seems to need a dose of bad medicine to learn what's good for it. LBJ gave us Nixon (conservative for his era) and Carter gave us Reagan. Those who always squawk about "eight years of Hillary/Obama" also need to remember that since FDR, the only Democrat to successfully run for office twice was Clinton, so we're only talking about another Democrat One-Term Wonder.

There’s still time. Despite all the hoopla in the liberal press, McCain didn’t do as well on Tsunami Tuesday as he needed to. With 29 states having already voted (over half) he’s only secured a little over 40% (under half) of the delegates he needs to secure the nomination. He only got 42% of the vote in California, which apportions its delegates. That’s good news. At this rate, Romney could still overtake him, or at the least we may have a brokered convention, and I don’t think that would bode well for McCain, who has made a career out of alienating his fellow Republicans. Further, most of the remaining primaries are closed, which means “independents” can’t participate, bad news for McCain.

The bottom line is that if McCain ends up as the nominee, I predict he’ll lead the GOP to a stunning defeat. He won’t get any support from conservatives, and the base is the source of the volunteer manpower and donations necessary for GOP victory.

In an era when the presidential election’s outcome is determined by a few thousand votes in a few precincts in a couple of states, McCain goes down in flames.