Staff

Book Review- Churchill, Roosevelt & Company by Lewis E Lehrman

W R Collier Jr June 30, 2017

Churchill, Roosevelt & Company: Studies in Character and Statecraft

By William R. Collier

How, and why, did the US enter the war against the Nazis and come to the rescue of Great Britain? Lewis E. Lehrman richly unpacks the whole story, centering around the “special relationship” between America and Great Britain. That relationship was born from a personal relationship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, as well as between the men surrounding these titanic figures.

Lewis E. Lehrman applies scholarly yet lucid treatment to complicated relationships. Lehrman is a holder of the National Humanities Medal, one of America’s most distinguished awards. The medal “honors individuals or groups whose work has deepened the nation’s understanding of the humanities and broadened our citizens’ engagement with history, literature, languages, philosophy, and other humanities subjects.” This work certainly lives up to these criteria.

Churchill, Roosevelt & Company is written to be enjoyed by lay readers and scholars alike. It is immediately accessible. Even if you are not a history buff, the drama behind the story Lehrman provides is as compelling as a work of great fiction. As a bonus, if you will, it contains reveal after reveal that helps make sense of contemporary politics, both national and worldwide.

On one side, Lehrman demonstrates the polished political legerdemain of a consummate political operator, FDR, and, on the other, the blunt but persuasive stratagems of a staunch realist, Winston Churchill. On one hand, the new, rising, power — America – was chary to enter someone else’s war, with all the blood and treasure that surely would spill.

On the other hand, Great Britain, and its Empire, was being brutally assaulted by the Axis powers. England seemed on the ropes. The rebel child of the British Empire, America, still had sympathy for its mother country. Also, consider the enemy: Hitler.

America was on the cusp of becoming a greater global power than its progenitor.

This book recounts an exciting time. It easily could have devolved to a much uglier — Nazi and fascist — world order. Churchill laid the groundwork by statecraft, which, when triggered by Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war on the US, led America to heroically seal the defeat of the Axis powers. Thus, America ended one of the greatest menaces to humanity ever, defeating an evil empire bent on exterminating and enslaving whole peoples.

The story Lehrman reports appears to be the fruit of a lifetime of research. There is hardly a point he makes that is without substantial documentation. His fascinating endnotes encompass over 100 pages. This provides an immediately accessible story that is easy to read and follow. But the endnotes and documentation add further depth of understanding of a formative period of our age.

Churchill, Roosevelt & Company: Studies in Character and Statecraft reveals that Roosevelt also was callous, if not ruthless, toward the British Empire, while naïve about the Soviet Union. FDR’s handling of lend-lease was brutal to the British both in terms of territory and coin. His administration was more generous to the Soviets.

Churchill understood the price of defeating Hitler could entail the end of the Empire. And yet, he did what was necessary. This is the main point I took from reading this revelatory work of history: Churchill’s recognition that unless he could draw a reluctant USA into WWII Nazi Germany would win. Coaxing the US into committing troops was Churchill’s entire purpose, statecraft-wise, even recognizing the high cost — Britain’s loss to America of world supremacy. It was a sobering, although necessary, trade.

I have always believed that great figures in history understand both the real crisis and the price to be paid in confronting it. Nazism was the great threat to human civilization. Churchill understood this and engaged his whole being into overcoming that at great risk and at great cost. He did so with his eyes wide open. This story of this existential trade makes for a compelling one. America had no dream of empire. History records we were, and are, a rare great power who went to war not motivated to create its own empire. But we were determined to dismantle one.

Yes, the story Lehrman tells, with great human interest, documents the events leading America into the war against, and victory over, Hitler. At the same time, it also recounts the cost imposed by America — the destruction of the British Empire — also at the hands of Americans who actively sought to dismantle their rival power, Great Britain.

Are Conservatives Losers?

W R Collier Jr May 23, 2017

Are we conservatives losers who snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by our constant navel gazing and self-critique even in the face of an all-out assault on our legitimacy by the Progressives? We see with the wanton and egregious attacks on Donald J. Trump that conservatives are ill-equipped intellectually and morally to stand strong.

The conspiracy theorists would argue, “The witch hunt against the duly elected President is nothing short of an effort to literally conduct a coup against the voters. The aim to is to place a globalist puppet in the White House to continue the globalist plan to dismantle freedom and use America’s resources to erect a ‘global superstructure’ with total control over your life.”

While that sounds sensational, the machinations of the Progressives and their media allies do in fact appear to evince of a design which could be described technically as a coup, although perhaps that is a stretch. The aim is to deligitimize the President and the Republicans and indeed the very ideas and values which underpin the original spirit and intent of our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Progressivism is an ideology that, upon exploration, is a utopian scheme to change human nature itself through direct control over the many by an elite few. Regardless of its slogans and constant virtue signalling, progressivism really does come down to that. Whatever the problem, the solution is always an elite few controlling the many for the sake of “progress”, which essentially requires the rewriting of human nature itself.

It is not an attractive ideology and Progressives seem to spend more time and energy denying and concealing their ideology than explaining it. Thus, in order to advance their agenda they must eliminate all competition. To create a scenario where the only choices are versions of Progressivism you have to deligitimize the other side, ideally by using the conservative penchant for moral and ethical purity to make them doubt the moral and ethical virtue of their leaders.

This is not about winning in the marketplace of ideas, this is about creating a marketplace in which progressivism alone has a monopoly, and all other ideas are illegitimate. By attacking leaders, whether the attacks have ANY basis in fact doesn’t matter, and then, once the conservatives turn on their own leaders, tarnishing all conservatives with the false accusations of corruption, you eliminate competition in the marketplace of ideas.

If indeed conservatives had a backbone, and most don’t seem to, this would not work. We would resist all progressive attacks, demand truth, and do the same right back to them. We would counter accuse, and Lord knows we would have no lack of material to work with. We would defend our leaders and our cause. We would vilify the Progressives, who deserve it, and we would seek to deligitimize them and their ideology at every turn.

In truth, conservatives have become a bunch of naval gazers with the weak conscious of the childish and immature. Too ready to abandon their leaders, too ready to buy into the opposition media’s lies, and too unwilling to turn the tables and launch their own attacks, conservatives look like weaklings and fools. The silly argument that we cannot blindly follow a leader, when nothing of the sort is required, is virtue signalling of the worse type.

If we are not careful, the attempt to delegitimize the President and us will have the effect of becoming a de facto coup, he would be forced to resign or something based on lies, and even as he is abandoned, the entire cause we say we believe in would be shamed and shunned. All resistance to the Progressives would be broken.

That is what is at stake.

There is a time for everything. There is a time to hold even our conservative leaders, even the President, accountable. But that time is not in the middle of a faux controversy being drummed up to change election outcomes at worse, or deligitimize the President and our cause at best. In the middle of a battle you don’t start an inquiry into whether you should support the generals. Do that later.

Conservatives had better wise up and stand strong, because if Donald Trump is delegitimized our whole movement will end up in the wildnerness. Defeat the Progressives, then let’s start talking about whether we can trust our own leaders.

The Conservatives Lost- It’s Time To Fight Back

W R Collier Jr May 4, 2016

By Bill Collier- We are at a point where a conservative cannot win the Republican primary. The Republican Party has not favored conservatives ever and has never really been a conservative party, at least in modern history. The truth is the leaders of the conservative movement have utterly failed- that is an objective fact. The people who claimed to be leading the Tea Party, the people who led the legacy conservative organizations, and conservative politicians within the GOP have collectively failed to win the battles that they needed to win.

We cannot win with “the next Reagan”, that ship has sailed and that was a 20^th century reality. Our issues, especially social conservative issues, are losing issues even though our positions are generally more in line with most people. IN other words, while the things we stand for line up with most Americans’ beliefs, most Americans don’t hold those issues as a high priority at all. Given a choice between what the liberals and moderates offer and social conservatives who only offer the opportunity to earn your own success and prosperity, we lose.

These are the hard facts which confront us at this trying hour in which, for the umpteenth time, there is not real conservative alternative who can win the election in 2016- the two major parties are both, to varying degrees, hostile to the conservative agenda, especially the social conservative agenda. America has become a socially libertine nation and it isn’t interested in the right to life, traditional marriage, or anything along those lines.

But just as Americans won’t make voting FOR social conservative issues a priority, so too, I propose, that they will not make voting FOR social libertinism their priority. Notice the Democrats and the moderates in the GOP rarely RUN on libertinism, though they pursue it once elected, and most Americans just go with the flow. What people care about is money- their money. Whether they comes from not being raked over the coals every year by the IRS or getting access to some program or benefit at public expense, or both, the American voter today lacks principles and virtues. That is a fact of life we are going to have to deal with if we are going to win voters to our cause.

Unless we can address their priorities and serve them and prove the success of our program, they will not support us. But if we serve the voters with a real agenda, not just a catch phrase, that lines up with their needs and priorities, then they will accept other aspects of what we wish to do, just as they do now for the liberals and moderates.

In the Republican Primary a socially libertine candidate won substantial support from voters who are socially very conservative because he was able to address their top priorities- number one seeming to be the economy and number two seeming to be a desire to overturn the current power structure within the Republican Party. The frustration conservatives feel is extremely high, especially for those who were excited by Ted Cruz’s candidacy. There is no candidate for the conservative, and that in part because, like most people, conservatives in large numbers voted for things they held in higher esteem than their own conservative beliefs.

I do not blame these people for doing what they did. We have to eat and survive and, sadly, while Ted Cruz had a great plan for addressing those core priorities, he spent little time and energy selling his commitment to those issues. I am not suggesting that conservative who run for office not set policy by their convictions. I am not suggesting Ted Cruz lost because of his social conservative values. I am suggesting that if you can’t prove that you will deliver good economic results for people you won’t win because people have to eat and keep a roof over their head. Trump did that. Now we’ll see if between he and Clinton which does that better- in the end that is what matters most.

I am not suggesting that a prof-life conservative stop being pro-life. I am suggesting that 90% of their campaign needs to be about what the voters care about and what their priorities are. They don’t really, in a general sense, care if you are pro-life or not, they care about what THEY care about. I don’t like it, I think it is shallow and short-sighted to be like that, I believe morals matters, but I also KNOW that voters place a premium on pocketbook and wallet issues.

The conservatives who are ready to bolt the GOP have had enough. I have been harsh in some comments to them, but as I am reflecting, I begin to see their perspective, and I have more sympathy, I myself have a visceral reaction to anything that support Hillary Clinton who will destroy our wallets and our culture! But as I step back….it becomes clear that conservatives who are ready to let the chips fall where they will have a point. Why keep trying to win on a battlefield where there has not been a real victory since 1984? The GOP has been an utterly fruitless field for the conservative movement.

But my counter argument is that the conservative movement has utterly failed on two counts- it has not farmed the field of the GOP and it has not set out an agenda and a program from action, beyond mere rhetoric, that convinces voters that we will deliver on their priorities. The Republican Party is a system.

Like all systems, self-perpetuation and maintaining the current leadership are built into the system- without these things you cannot maintain a system. So it is always an uphill climb to change the leadership and restructure the system. But conservatives have failed to even give that a good try- their time and money has not gone into moving activists into leadership from the precinct, up and they massaging has utterly failed to deliver voters on a consistent basis. Because they do not show up at meetings, participate in activities, invest money, and elect their own to local positions of authority within the Party they utterly fail.

To blame the GOP when the GOP is just a field to be plowed reminds me of the story Acres of Diamonds. In this story, the farmer sees only fallow land and trues everything but plowing the land- he tries all kinds of get rich quick schemes and none work. Eventually, he sells the farm. The guy who buys it then proceeds to plow in earnest to try and resurrect the fallow ground. He discovers that just a few feet below the surface are acres of tiny diamond fragments- he becomes extremely rich.

Conservatives have tried everything but the gritty and boring work of plowing the field. They have not focused on moving activists into the realm of local to national Party leadership through a demonstrated commitment to the Party they need to win elections. They gave not honed their message to give the People what the People want. And they have, as a movement, utterly failed to invest in the people who actually get things done, such as bloggers and local activists who work for free while consultants live large and accomplish nothing.

I am going to vote for the Party in November. I am not voting for Trump, I am voting for the Republican Party Platform, which I mostly agree with. And I am going to work to help build a prosperity movement founded on my social conservative values within the GOP that will move activists to places of real leadership in all levels of that Party, I am going to FARM THIS FIELD called the Republican Party, and in November I a going t vote to ensure that there is still a field to be plowed instead of letting the likes of Hillary Clinton ascend to the throne.

Now if, in the Convention, the Party so alters its platform that I cannot vote for it, that is a different matter. I will hope that those who have influence there will fight for a conservative platform, otherwise we would be giving away the farm to the progressives within who have been plowing that field.

The conservative rank and file have been following and supporting leaders who have failed to plow the field of the Republican Party, who have failed to move conservative activists into leadership positions in that Party starting at the precincts, and who have failed to provide a coherent message that earns the trust of voters for our candidates. A Hillary Presidency will make building a new and practically effective conservative movement nearly impossible as she may very well end our freedom to even openly operate as social conservatives or capitalists. Pulling down the whole house on our own heads is not a comparison to Sampson, it is a comparison to the kamikaze, it is kamikaze conservatism.

Social conservatives who believe in freedom, the free market, and America have to stop Hillary, farm the field of the GOP, and create a message and program that serves the People’s actual priorities and thus EARNS their support for our priorities.

The Arc Bends In Trump’s Favor

W R Collier Jr April 27, 2016

Bill Collier- The media and others are convinced: Trump is unstoppable. But is this really the case given how we’ve seen unreliable polling and how things have twisted and changed so rapidly?

The key state is, or may be, California.

California ballots are mailed in two weeks. 80% of CA voters choose by mail. Therefore in a very real sense the CA primary, which is an open primary, begins in two weeks.

Kasich is relying on getting Democrats in LA and San Fransisco to vote for him, Trump is trying to get dems and independents to cross over and support hm, Cruz is focused on districts that are very conservative.

Who has the ground game in CA and how do you get people to vote, considering 80% vote from home via the mail? Rallies, media, and internet ads are going to matter more than normal on the ground GOTV efforts. This favors Trump and Kasich but Cruz has shown himself to adroit online, just not great for rallies.

Polling may not be extremely reliable. But neither Cruz nor Kasich can win the state overall, Trump is going to get the most votes of the three, and may reach 50%…but that is iffy. This is a race on a district-by-district basis and one wonders if any of the campaigns are doing solid internal polling on such a basis. Trump has to focus on all the districts to both get his overall win and to get district delegates, while kasich and cruz, forfeiting the overall win, only have to focus on the districts they can expect to win. They are performing a blocking action whereas Trump needs a breakthrough.

Crossover votes from Democrats will be greater if Bernie Sanders drops out of the race before California because the Clinton campaign won’t need to sweat the election: but that voting begins in two weeks. The machinery that is needed to get those votes will be in high gear and cannot be easily reversed: all those ads, mailers, and phone calls are in process right now. Therefore, Kasich and Trump will have less crossover votes, but this cuts more into Kasich’s vote-getting than it does Trump’s.

Indiana may not be enough to stop Trump or to secure a win for Trump, unless he sweeps it. If Trump loses big in Indiana, he can still do so well in CA that he still gets to the right number. If Cruz loses big, he and Kasich could conceivably block Trump in so many districts in CA that he gets less than 100 of the 171 delegates. This is something they need to be spending money and resources on NOW before ballots start showing up in people’s mail in two weeks. In this latter scenario, Trump may limp into Cleveland with 1200 pledged delegates for the first round of voting.

The question then becomes a matter of the convention’s stomach for a contested process that puts someone with far fewer delegates and votes than the front-runner. The NEVERTRUMP crowd is convinced that stopping Trump from getting on the ballot is a higher priority than beating Hillary Clinton OR that anyone but Trump would be a better candidate to beat Hillary.

In the end, the nevertrump forces have an easier goal to reach, just ensure Trump doesn’t get to 1237. Trump has a harder goal- he has to get to 1237 or more. But the arc has bent in Trump’s favor and, while he has a higher mountain to climb, he is still slightly closer to his desired summit than his opponents are to theirs.

(NOTE- Credit is due Karl Rove who used the phrase “the arc has turned toward Trump” in his analysis last night, on the 26th of April, 2016.)

Why I Am Disappointed In Ted Cruz

W R Collier Jr April 25, 2016

This meme illustrates how the deal between Kasich and Cruz to bow out of different states looks to me...and many others..even though I have always wanted Cruz to win. — This meme illustrates how the deal between Kasich and Cruz to bow out of different states looks to me…and many others..even though I have always wanted Cruz to win.

By Bill Collier- From the start of the campaign I was excited for Ted Cruz. He made his announcement on March 15, 2015. Technically he had already announced via a Tweet, but his speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg VA was the starting point.

I followed his career as a Senator and was often inspired by his speeches. When I saw his actual plans….I was hopeful oh so hopeful, that we could get this man, the only rock-solid and straight down the line true conservative in the race, into the White House! No more backroom deals, no more insider baseball, oh, and did I mention the gold standard? Cruz supports SOUND MONEY and only gold can give us that. He supports the things he supports because they will make us all more likely to prosper!

He was quoted by the Washington Post-

“Today, I am announcing that I am running for president of the United States,” Cruz said, about 20 minutes into a speech to students here. “Ted! Ted!” students yelled.

“It is the time for truth. It is the time for liberty. It is the time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States,” Cruz said.

It was a moment of promise and hope and I was happy to count myself a TedHead. Cruz had proven he could and would fight, he had an exemplary public record, and he had argued liberal lawyers to a stand-still in front of the Supreme Court. His resume is a conservative fantasy come true, frankly.

But as the race proceeded it became all too clear. Ted Cruz was missing the plot.

Back in August of 2015, Trump and Cruz joined forces to protest the Iran deal. This was before they cordially loathed one another. (The cordiality is gone now, too.) The whole exercise was a distraction, it elevated Trump, and it didn’t do Cruz any good. It was such a total distraction from his main offering, his main selling point, which was and is PROSPERITY.

Art Laffer and Steve Moore, full disclosure, for whom I have built a website, were quick to note that of the candidates running in November of 2015, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had the best tax plans. His plan and his initial rhetoric in favor of his pro-prosperity plan were praised by Ralph Benko in his Forbes online column. In fact I have my own insider sources who re-assured me that Cruz had been told that his plan was the best plan for prosperity and that he could win by preaching a pro-prosperity message.

The sad irony for prosperity voters such as myself, Ted Cruz did not push a prosperity message, his theme was a mixture of conservative purity, outsider street cred, and Christian statesmen. None of these are bad things, but voters really mostly want prosperity. And, unlike anyone else, I think, Ted Cruz has a plan that will deliver that, but Donald Trump is the one who is promising that. (Clearly, a vote for Trump is NOT a vote for prosperity, regardless of the rhetoric).

So what has become of the Cruz campaign?

Cruz failed to win straight up. He didn’t get the popular votes needed to secure first round votes in the convention- Trump has more than 2.5 million vote than Cruz and almost 300 more first round guaranteed delegate votes in the convention. Cruz, a lawyer and a brilliant tactician in such matters, has figured out how to game the system to snatch away delegates, all legally I will add, to try to win on round two of the votes. He is spending money and resources, and lots of it, to get delegates.

Meanwhile, now it is announced that Cruz will cede Oregon and New Mexico to Kasich who will cede Indiana to Cruz in the hopes of stopping Trump from winning in those states. This is all perfectly legal and legitimate, and Trump complaining about it is laughable (as if he would not do the same thing). But it is a far cry from the opening lines of such a promising campaign.

While no formal numbers have been revealed, Ted Cruz’s campaign is said to be “well organized” to mobilize people on the ground and get his supporters nominated and elected, by local to state conventions, to be delegates. Even in states where Trump won, many of the delegates selected have pledged to vote for Cruz on round two if Trump doesn’t come in with enough to win in the first round. This is a credit to Cruz and demerit to Trump who should have known better!

Cruz became mired in responding to the latest outlandish Trump attack, he threw out red meat, he had near religious events with Glenn Beck, and now he is focused on getting delegates to secure a win…by what many see as a backdoor. It may be legal and fair, but it is hardly what I had hoped to be seeing this late in the game.

Cruz is not liked by the establishment types. Mitch McConnell, who loathes both Trump and Cruz openly, gleefully, predicted a contested convention. Karl Rove’s speculation of a “fresh face” emerging may not have been evidence of an evil plot on his part, but a learned analysis of what is quite possible- the GOP will try to put up someone other than Trump or Cruz in a contested convention.

The opening remarks of the campaign, which were so promising, have now devolved to this from an interview with Seam Hannity:

“Donald Trump’s campaign does not know how to organize on the grassroots, and so when the delegates are elected the real conservative activists show up, they elect delegates and we are winning those elections over and over and over again,” Senator Cruz explained to Sean. “I cannot help that the Donald Trump campaign does not seem capable of running a lemonade stand.”

This may in fact be true. But winning elections by the popular vote is the key to legitimacy in this society, a society long trained in the notion that every vote counts and that it is your duty to go out and vote. It is also a complete distraction from Cruz’s actual best selling point- that he has the plan that will make us all more prosperous.

It is a lawyerly response from Cruz- now it’s not the votes in primary or caucuses which are convenient and open to all registered party members, it’s the delegates. Technically, quite true, and yet, it’s sausage and now we are talking about all the ingredients of sausage instead of prosperity!

Ted Cruz being forced to rely on legerdemain to win, instead of good, clean wins at the polls coupled with such legerdemain to protect his delegates, is about as appealing as, well, the legal profession itself. The fact is. we are at this place because Ted Cruz could not muster enough of a plurality of votes to beat a New York liberal in a GOP primary. And the reason for that is not Trump, the media, Sean Hannity, or Drudge, all the people Cruz blames: the reason is that Ted Cruz had a brilliant path to victory through a prosperity message but he allowed himself to get distracted.

I am disappointed in Cruz because he allowed himself to become distracted from the only message that will work, prosperity, despite having the plan to back such a message up. He failed to win nice and clean by wining so much support that he only needed to use his delegate mining legerdemain to protect his lead in subsequent rounds if needed. I don’t blame him for fighting on, but I am disappointed that he could not win a clear MORAL victory, coupled with a legal victory, over his opponents.

If Cruz manages to pull this off and win by delegate mining legerdemain I won’t necessarily fault him. You can bet if Cruz was ahead and wasn’t so good at the delegate game he’d be the one facing a contested convention despite being far ahead. In other words, the other side would resort to these means in a heartbeat.

But even if he does win- if he fails to get on the prosperity train and stay there and not be distracted by anything or anyone, not even Hillary and her media sycophants, he will lose the popular vote and he will have no recourse to delegate mining legerdemain!

I do not mean to suggest I won’t vote for Cruz, I am simply disappointed, and I say that as someone who wants Cruz to win. If he manages to pull this off, and, again, nobody can convince me anybody else would not do whatever it takes, he has a choice. Push a massive prosperity message making big promises he can deliver- people will quickly forget and not care about the process that led to his COMING OUT as a prosperity guy.

In the end, we are all prosperity voters. Trump and the Democrats seems to be very good at talking that talk. Cruz can walk that walk, it’s only his messaging that I am disappointed in.

Why The Election of 1896 STILL Matters Today

W R Collier Jr April 19, 2016

By Bill Collier- Winning an election depends upon a mix of popularity, a well-run campaign built on sound strategy, and a willingness to do whatever is necessary. This must be coupled with a firm grasp of the best techniques, and technologies, to reach the right people at the right time. Finally, it depends on a mastery of narrative.

This has been the genius of “the architect”, as some call him, Karl Rove. With his ground-breaking book, The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters, we gain deep insights into Rove’s genius, an important episode in American history, and the fundamentals of modern politics

No doubt the book was written as Rove’s valuable contribution to the study of American history. But, for me, it is much more than that. It is practically a scientific manual any would-be “influencer” should digest deeply and thoroughly until the insights gained become instinctive reactions. I intend to read this book often, take notes, and encapsulate its ideas until they become enmeshed in my train of thought. I liked it that much.

I should note: I am no fanboy. I have never had a problem holding back my criticism of Mr. Rove or anyone. But I took this book at face value and my review reflects the merit of the work. However, I should also add, the book gave me insights into Mr. Rove which certainly raised his esteem in my eyes.

McKinley fought the duel for the White House, first against the party bosses in his party, then against the populist and charismatic William Jennings Bryan. Bryan being of “cross of gold” speech fame. The duel was not pretty and makes today’s politics seem utterly pedestrian by comparison. Instead of mean names tossed about on camera, men fought it out with fists right in the convention hall!

(That McKinley turned those same bosses and his former opponents into allies during the general election is also an important lesson.)

My attraction to this book began with reading another review, by my colleague and business associate, Ralph Benko, in his Forbes column. Benko compared the election of 1896 to today and his review is worth a read for its insights. Mr. Rove’s publisher graciously sent me a copy for review on The Freedomist upon my request: and from the first chapter I was hooked.

To read history by an historian is one thing, but to read a well-researched history by one who has mastered the arts perfected by the object of that history is quite another thing. One discovers a great American, President McKinley, whose most endearing qualities are lost on the minds of many Americans. While not covered in the book, McKinley is most well-known for being assassinated shortly after his re-election. But this man re-wrote the political handbook, as it were, and, aside from changes in electoral coalitions and technology, the fundamentals laid down by this campaign remain valid.

One also discovers the deep insights which, love him or hate him, made and make Karl Rove himself a fixture in today’s political scene. What is more, the writing style really feels like Rove is talking about this campaign, narrating for us, WHILE IT IS HAPPENING. I might be forgiven for feeling like I lived through that election myself!

The book is accessible to anyone who enjoys history, biography, or politics. For those who want to understand politics, especially those trying to get their head wrapped around the role of delegates or how campaigns are run, this book is required reading as a primer. It is true that in 1896 there were no primaries or caucuses which informed the votes of delegates. But there was dependence on a combination of popularity among rank and file voters and the ability to recruit and elect YOUR delegates.

As Rove notes on page 95,

“In politics, it pays to be lucky. But to win, Hanna and McKinley would leave nothing to chance. They would insist on instructions for national delegates. This meant using their grassroots majorities at district and state conventions to vote to direct their national delegates to support McKinley as long as he was in the race.”

Party participation was much more intense and widespread back then. For this reason the multiple conventions by which delegates were chosen tended to reflect the “grassroots consensus.” Lining up your support to the delegate choosing process has long been a staple of politics. McKinley took it to a whole new level of mastery.

I might argue, in 2016 we see a master of dominating a strong plurality of grassroots supporters dueling with a master of managing the delegate selection process. This explains the sudden confusion as voters consider that how delegates vote may disagree with who won the greatest plurality of votes in their state. McKinley’s lesson from 1896, so aptly discerned by Rove, has somehow been lost on modern politicians in both parties.

More than the process, McKinley managed the narrative, and he did so against a worthy opponent in the general election. While it took him some time, eventually McKinley got down to confronting his opponent’s key issue, but on McKinley’s terms.

That issue turned out to be the economy. In particular, the right currency for the economy. Bryan was pushing for “free silver”, to debase the dollar and use the printing press to infuse the economy with cash. This would also make American exports more attractive, it was proposed. It was a populist notion aimed at “the rich.” It was designed to paint the Republicans as the party of the rich. As Rove notes on page 315, the answer was to open mills, not mints. McKinley went on the attack, undermining the very premise of Bryan’s argument. McKinley also went for the very workers and farmers Bryant was courting. McKinley said, “No one suffers from cheap money so much as farmers and laborers.”

In short, McKinley matched wits with a powerful narrative weaver by launching an equally powerful narrative of his own. This was not a narrative versus a counter-narrative, it was two opposing narratives, both offering prosperity as the final goal.

McKinley didn’t just argue “Free Silver won’t do what Bryan says it will do.” He didn’t just argue that the gold standard was superior. He argued: Gold will make YOU prosper and “free silver” will drive you to poverty.

The battle, if not explicitly stated in these terms, was between prosperity versus poverty. Bryan argued for what we could call “fairness” and “equality” and tried to make McKinley look unfair.

McKinley argued for prosperity, simple and clean and sure: Sound money would beat cheap currency and naturally rising income would beat socialist schemes. For every Utopian promise, McKinley offered a better answer. For every stereotype deployed, McKinley responded without holding back. (He painted Bryan as un-patriotic and divisive.)

The book itself is filled with these stories. One is left wondering how much better the GOP itself would be if every member of the Party read and understood what is contained in this book.

I would urge the reader to get this book and spend a lot of time with it. I would urge Karl Rove to consider digging much deeper into the general election. Perhaps with volume two? The book is more focused on the primary battle than the general election. But it was not found wanting.

I already knew from reading Benko’s review that this book would surprise me. If you watch Rove on TV expect a far more approachable style in plain language than might be possible in the brief segments in which he is featured. Rove comes across a storyteller and an historian. You will kick yourself if you don’t read this book.

Find the book HERE- The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters

US Under Threat Of Saudi Economic Attack

W R Collier Jr April 18, 2016

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, joined by the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia, shake hands with members of the Saudi Royal Family at the Erqa Royal Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 27, 2015, as they, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other dignitaries extended condolences to the late King Abdullah and call upon and met with King Salman. (Photo by State Department) *** Please Use Credit from Credit Field *** (Newscom TagID: sipaphotosfive183721.jpg) [Photo via Newscom] — President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, joined by the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia, shake hands with members of the Saudi Royal Family at the Erqa Royal Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on January 27, 2015….[Photo via Newscom]

This problem has been illustrated in profound ways by the American President’s trip to Saudi Arabia on April 20th. He is expected to try to mend fences with the despotic salafist kingdom despite its possible role in sponsoring terrorism which may have benefited those who attacked Americans on September 11, 2001. At issue is an effort, and an unfulfilled promise, to release 28 pages of the 911 report which spell out suspicions that Saudi officials aided the 911 hijackers. This would be a crippling blow to Saudi prestige in the US and abroad and would sour the public even further against the despotic salafist kingdom.

The timing of the President’s trip is disconcerting to many who see kowtowing to the Saudis at play here. This has been an ongoing problem since well before President Obama took office, but the President had promised to release the 28 pages. Those who felt that President (GW) Bush was too cozy with the Saudis have been let down by President Obama whose rhetoric has not matched his actions.

The Saudis have been rather bald and open in their response to the mere “threat” of exposing possible terror ties. Adel al-Jubeir, their foreign minister, has literally threatened to unload as much as $750 billion in US assets, securities, and other holdings. He claims it would better to unload these assets rather than face any possible forfeiture of such assets if victims of Saudi-sponsored terror are given the green light to sue the despotic salafist kingdom. Congress is considering legislation that would pave the way to sue any foreign government which might have even indirectly sponsored terrorism resulting in harm to Americans. With those 28 pages as proof, 911 families might have grounds to sue the Saudis and seize parts of their US business empire as compensation.

The key threat is Saudi Arabia’s intention to liquidate its US dollar holdings. This would amount to economic warfare aimed at punishing the US by attempting to cause a collapse in the value of the dollar. But nobody knows how many treasury holdings the Saudis possess- unlike the figures for other nations, the figures for Saudi are kept secret.

Saudi Arabia holds around $500 billion in US dollars. China, by comparison, holds almost $3.5 trillion in US dollars. While analysts focus on Saudi Arabia’s threats, which some assert would hurt the Saudis, the greater issue is the policy that allows foreign governments to directly or indirectly control vital US assets.

It is not possible to stop anyone from holding dollar reserves, which are bought on the open market, but actual US properties, businesses, and treasuries could be used by foreign governments to hold US policy hostage. US policy is being held hostage by this despotic salafist kingdom because of threats of brutal economic warfare against the American people.

At the very hour in which the American people want answers about the possible Saudi ties to the 911 hijackers so that our people can obtain justice, the American President is flying off to that same despotic regime to “mend fences.” Instead of supporting the American people, the US President, like so many before, is caving in to Saudi economic blackmail.

This all comes back to the core problem. Nations such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia see no separation between economic and political activity. They have no hesitation in using economic activities in the global market to pursue political aims. The US has officially turned a blind eye to this. Our government allows foreign powers to have so much control over vital US economic assets and resources that political policies that are beneficial to the US could be jeopardized.

Will the Saudis follow through on these threats if Congress passes the 911 bill and if those 28 pages are released? This is not the real question. The real question is: will President Obama listen to the American people or Saudi threats of brutal economic warfare against Americans? Few predict President Obama will do anything different than any other President has. Even fewer would predict the US will rethink its myopic policies of allowing foreign powers to control vital economic assets.

10 US Sailors In Iranian Custody

W R Collier Jr January 12, 2016

140210-N-IZ292-113 NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY BAHRAIN (Feb. 10, 2014) Electronics Technician 2nd Class Andrew Garcia, right, and Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Chris Stout handle a line while a coastal command boat is lifted from the pier in preparation to lower into the water. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Felicito Rustique/Released) — 140210-N-IZ292-113
NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY BAHRAIN (Feb. 10, 2014) Electronics Technician 2nd Class Andrew Garcia, right, and Boatswain’s Mate 2nd Class Chris Stout handle a line while a coastal command boat is lifted from the pier in preparation to lower into the water. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Felicito Rustique/Released)

W. R. Collier Jr- BREAKING- 10 US Sailors In Iranian Custody- POSSIBLE SECRET NEW US NAVY BOAT MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN
Two US boats reportedly run aground on Iranian island due to mechanical failure, 5 sailors on board taken in custody by Iranians who promise to return boats and crews promptly. Among the sailors taken into custody are nine men and one women. Within 18 hours, at around 6 AM US Eatern on the 13th, it was reported the sailors were freed, but not the boats.

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR UPDATES

The incident was first reported to US Secretary of State John Kerry, at 12:30 PM on January 12, 2016, who called Iran’s Foreign Minister, a man who he is said to have warm relations with, and he was assured that the crews and vessels would be promptly reutrned. However, it was nearly 18 hours later that the sailors were freed while the boats remained in Iranian custody.

(more…)

The Fantasy of Progressivism- A Sewer of Death

W R Collier Jr November 23, 2015

W. R. Collier Jr- Some 80 plus years ago Oswald Spengler, in his “Man and Technics”, described the final form of “materialism” a civilization takes before it enters a dead Caesarism which he felt had been expressed in the 18th and 19th centuries but which would give way to the fascism of the 1930’s which, though he was no fan of fascism, he felt was inevitable.

Spengler was prescient but wrong, at the same time. While he described a genuine philosophy of “materialism”, rooted in Hegel and Marx’s interpretation of Hegel, he failed to see that this ideology as a rebellion against morality had not taken root in the masses, but only among the elite. It is for our day that what he called materialism, and which I describe, I think more accurately, as libertine collectivism has become so general that in much of Western Civilization it has displaced faith and morality as surely as it has replaced science and reason, it’s constant claims to be “scientific” notwithstanding.

And so he writes of this utopian, but actually dystopian, fantasy that poisons the minds of a late and dying culture:

“No more war; no more distinctions between races, peoples, states, or religions; no criminals or adventurers; no conflicts arising out of superiorities and differences, no hate or vengeance anymore, but eternal comfort throughout the millennia. Even today, when we experience the last phases of this trivial optimism, these idiocies make one shudder, thinking of the appalling boredom — the taedium vitae of the Roman Imperial age — that spreads over the soul in the mere reading of such idylls, of which even a partial actualisation in real life could only lead to wholesale murder and suicide.”

What he leaves us with, however, is only resignation and despair. The Caesar must come, sewing together the ruined pieces sundered by the time of fantastical decadence, and he must reign some centuries before the final curtain falls on a civilization.

Spengler failed on three counts: the attempted Caesarism of the 1930’s and 40’s in the West was only a dry run for the real thing, his “materialism” had not run its course (and still has not), and he neglected to take into account that the history of civilizations is not linear- one civilization does not follow another, but one begins even as another is coming to an end, and many escape the vissicitudes of the dying civilization by embracing the ideals of the new civilization.

His description, however, of 19th century materialism in its propositions, promises, and its gross pride in its alleged scientific basis (witness the global warming cult, akin to the classic end-times cults of the mid to later 19th century which were just as “certain” of their theological and mathematical predictions), sounds like the pop-culture version of late Western “progressivism” which, as he also notes, actually seeks a stasis of luxury for all without want, a paradise on earth, achieved by the gods of men, the technocracy, all for pleasure, a utility of “whatever pleases the majority”, that sweeps aside the individual, all while claiming to practically adore the individual, that, like Caesar, “makes a desert and calls it peace.”

Because MOST people, even some reading this, have such a tiny porthole through which they view such things as history and philosophy, instead of the grand vistas of 30,000 plus years of the rise and fall of human societies, it is impossible to dig deeper than perhaps 100 years back and to look no further than the next “most important ever” election! When you see the march of history, in its cycles and patterns, it is a wonder everyone isn’t even now looking for signs of the coming civlization which, like all new civilizations, will be first and foremost moral, virtuous. They would discard the pleasure seekers and fantasy weavers, knowing that these are not prophets of a golden age but pallbearers of a dying culture.

The Refugee Crisis- Balancing Humanitarian Aid with Protection

W R Collier Jr September 14, 2015

From the World Freedomist, Bill Collier gives us an analysis of the dilemma of aiding people in need with the real security risks of inviting tens of thousands of people in your country, some of which may be coming in to do you harm.

Refugees Versus Security

Bill Collier- The surge of refugees from Syria and Northern Iraq into Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and central Europe has caused alarm bells to ring around the world. The chief concern, and suspicion, has come from the fact that over 70% of all those claiming to be refugees are, apparently, well fed, strapping young men between the ages of 17 and 30: precisely the demographic who are most likely to be members of ISIL or any number of Salafo-facist groups (both Shia and Sunni).

Read the Full Article of World Freedomist