With apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning:

How does he love us? Let me count the ways.

He loves us to the deficit’s height,

No voter escapes his loving sight,

New programs conjured all apace,  

Carefully crafted for our embrace.

Envy and greed to win the election, 

All designed to prevent his rejection.

But if voters another should choose,

Passion spent and yet to lose.

No more pricy vacations.

No more grand ovations.

Once outside the White House door

He will not love us any more.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an early adherent of Rahm Emanuel’s philosophy regarding crisis and opportunity. With unemployment at almost 20%, Roosevelt used fear and economic uncertainty to breach the Constitution with an alphabet soup of overlapping interventions in the economy.*

Roosevelt radically altered the relationship between citizen and government in America, and not for the better. With enhanced executive power, Roosevelt rewarded friends and punished enemies for his own advantage, morally corrupting the office of president. Readers will learn about all of the above and much more from FDR Goes to War.

It is evident that Barack Obama has not only adopted FDR’s political strategies, he has worked throughout his presidency to further extend the economic policies, controls, massive spending, and tax policies Roosevelt launched. This important book penetrates the shield of hagiography erected by leftist journalists and historians to reveal how those policies came about and what they accomplished.

FDR and his New Dealers had a special system for mobilizing the WPA (Works Progress Administration) to win elections. During election years, they had increased WPA rolls (and those of other federal programs as well). Those who received government jobs were grateful and were expected to campaign vigorously for Democrats on Election Day. After the election, the WPA laid off workers because they were not needed until the next campaign, thereby cutting some federal spending to make the budget deficits look smaller. Some members of Roosevelt’s cabinet were nervous about moving poor Americans on and off the WPA for political purposes.

The authors point out that members’ occasional qualms did not overcome their determination to get FDR reelected. Roosevelt was reelected four times, but despite the billions poured into New Deal programs, the economy remained stubbornly stagnant. What he did accomplish during his first two terms was to grow the national debt faster than any previous peacetime president.

He spent lavishly on new programs while slashing defense spending. Regardless of ominous events in Europe, he reduced the army, refused to replace outworn WWI equipment and cut appropriations for the War Department. He also manipulated public opinion and searched for a “’flash point,’ an international incident that would goad the American public into demanding war.”

Even before taking office in 1933, FDR favored war with Japan “now rather than later,” as he told a confidant. Most Americans, however, appalled by new revelations of the slaughter of WWI, favored an isolationist foreign policy.

On becoming president FDR kept his views about Japan to himself and concentrated on the economy. He saw no urgency in training large numbers of men or replacing antiquated weapons. He believed men could quickly be converted from “mechanical trades” to the military. He knew nothing about military realities and his egoism coupled with his primary political considerations were almost fatal to America’s war preparedness.

Roosevelt made the military a stepchild of the New Deal. He used some WPA and the CWA (Civil Works Administration) workers for military projects, upsetting administration progressives, but garnering votes in the favored districts.

Hitler‘s rapid military successes took FDR by surprise. As Hitler’s troops swept through Belgium, Holland and France, General George Marshall and several cabinet officers pleaded with FDR to allow Marshall to ask Congress for a large increase in defense appropriations. But with elections less than 6 months way, FDR was leery of appearing too war-like, having promised to keep America out of the war. Marshall’s arguments prevailed and FDR asked Congress for more than a billion dollars to deliver much needed armaments to the nations fighting Hitler. Congress complied, belatedly recognizing that the defense of the Western Hemisphere had become a top priority.

In Roosevelt’s May 26, 1940 Fireside Chat, he abandoned his previous anti-business rhetoric. No more would he refer to corporate heads as ’privileged princes’ who were ‘thirsting for power.” Times had changed. FDR offered federal “partnerships” and incentives to American industrialists for converting their factories to manufacturing the munitions needed to defeat Hitler and his allies. To win the war he would suspend antitrust laws and allow corporate leaders to share ideas and personnel.

The authors explain that presidents could fail to end depressions and still survive politically if they had a viable scapegoat. FDR had proven that. But losing wars was another matter. Historians would hold him accountable if that happened on his watch. To save his legacy he would embrace big business to arm the United States. However for the sake of the 1940 elections, FDR would continue to pretend that America could stay out of the war, while buying time to rebuild defenses.

When war did come, Roosevelt’s lack of preparedness became apparent. He had underestimated the Japanese, and their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor devastated the American Navy and exposed the president’s incompetence.

He used the war as an excuse to seize private property; conducted illegal wiretaps of political opponents; attempted to silence members of the press he had not already seduced with flattery or favors and, most egregious of all, interned 110,000 Japanese-Americans, despite assurances by J. Edgar Hoover and others that they were overwhelming loyal.

Such a violation of the Constitution was unprecedented in U.S. history, and Roosevelt had a variety of pressures that led him to make such a decision. Alleged ‘military necessity’ was one, but political expediency was another.

Western states racist groups had long opposed Japanese immigration and many farmers resented the competition. It is telling that Roosevelt never considered interning German and Italian immigrants, even though we were at war with their countries.

In Roosevelt’s political calculations, he wanted votes from German-Americans and Italian-Americans. He also wanted to carry California and the western states. By relocating only the Japanese–Americans, he could please native Californians, and not offend the many ethnic Germans and Italians he would need to win reelection in 1944.

The Folsoms also shine light on FDR’s policy regarding the rescue of European Jews. After the fall of France, Jewish émigrés, desperate to save those still trapped across the Atlantic, appealed to Eleanor Roosevelt to persuade her husband to grant the necessary visas.

Roosevelt’s policy on Eastern European immigration reflected that of he State Department, which argued, “If these people were in trouble, then they must be troublemakers–probably ‘Reds’ of Nazi spies–not the kind of immigrants that Americans wanted.

Roosevelt gave lip service to saving the imperiled Jews but followed the advice of Breckinridge Long, an old friend and contributor to his presidential campaigns.

”In June of 1940, Long wrote:

We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We can do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of visas’ …Literally tens of thousands of available visas were never used at US consulates, under orders from Washington.

Roosevelt’s conduct of foreign policy was also disastrous. FDR liked and trusted Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, despite Churchill’s warnings.

The Folsoms report that Roosevelt was enchanted with what he thought was the Russians’ worldview. In a conversation with Francis Perkins, the secretary of Labor, FDR commented, “They all really do what is good for society instead of wanting to do for themselves. We take care of ourselves and think about the welfare of society afterward.” In another conversation with Ambassador William Bullett, Roosevelt elaborated, “I think if I give him everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.’”

Roosevelt ‘s self-confidence was boundless. He thought he could negotiate, placate and charm Stalin into becoming a democrat.

By March 1944… as Stalin’s Army approached Poland, the Poles in America began to worry about what Roosevelt might have given away at Teheran, and how he felt about Poland’s independence.

Roosevelt publicly assured them that Poland would be fine. However, some Polish-Americans were vocal about their doubts. With the November elections looming, FDR invited a Polish-American delegation to the White House for a personal meeting and press photos. The old Roosevelt charm carried the day.

Roosevelt won almost 96% of Polish-American votes– “and he didn’t have to meet with Stalin for four more months, at which time the Polish-Americans would finally begin to learn the bad news about Stalin’s real intentions and Roosevelt’s grand concessions to him.”

The authors address a question that has long threatened to sully Roosevelt’s legacy.

Did FDR specifically and knowingly allow Pearl Harbor to be attacked so that he could ask for a declaration of war from Congress? The answer is no. Research shows that Roosevelt was sure the Japanese would attack; the question was where? And he, like most other strategists, believed that they would attack Singapore and probably the Philippines. That Roosevelt and most military leaders grossly underestimated, or even ignored the capabilities of aerial attack is undoubtedly true. That Roosevelt and (Cordell) Hull (Secretary of State) could have come to some agreement with the Japanese that would have delayed the war and given the United States more time to prepare is true. And that Roosevelt squandered billions of dollars on pet New Deal projects in the eight years leading up to Pearl Harbor while allowing the military to languish with archaic equipment is also true. Roosevelt’s incompetence in both foreign policy and military planning certainly contributed to the disaster, but he did not plan or desire the devastation at Pearl Harbor on December 7.

The authors also point out that FDR’s leadership during the war was often evasive and self-serving. His naïveté and egoism resulted in the communist domination of Eastern and Central Europe with all that portended. On this side of the Atlantic, the war laid the groundwork for permanent government expansion.

To fund the war and his planned economy, Roosevelt secured a large and regular supply of revenue by raising taxes and requiring the withholding of pay. Before the war, fewer than 5% of Americans were required to pay income taxes. By the end of the war, the number jumped to about 65% of adultAmericans … and the top rate was 94% of all incomes over $200,000.

FDR was, beyond question, an enormously effective communicator. He used his Fireside Chats to reassure and unite the nation behind winning the war. To his credit, he secretly funneled arms to a beleaguered and increasingly desperate England. Whatever his failings, and they were legion, he believed in American ascendency and its commanding position in the post war world, even as he envisioned himself commander.

FDR Goes to War is surprisingly short, (313 pages, plus another 57 of sources), considering the wealth of available material. It should become a point of departure for other, more extensive, examinations of FDR’s policies. This book should be widely read because it reveals the origins and, especially, the results of those policies. This reviewers’ only complaint is the absence of photographs. For the majority of readers whose memory banks do not hold the many unique images of the period, the text would have been wonderfully amplified had they been included.

*Among them: the Emergency Banking Act (1933), the Economy Act (1933), the Federal Securities Act (1933), the Tennessee Valley Authority (1933), the Civilian Conservation Corps (1933), the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (1933), the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), the Civil Works Administration (1933), the Public Works Administration (1933), the National Recovery Administration (1933), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (1933), the Farm Credit Administration (1933), the Federal Housing Administration (1934), the Gold Reserve Act (1934), the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (1934), the Works Progress Administration (1935), the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (1935), the Social Security Act (1935), the National Labor Relations Act (1935), the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (1936), the National Housing Act (1937), the Farm Security Administration (1937), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938).

Washington led an exemplary life.  It is not that he was perfect, or that he has not been the subject of myth.  However, anyone who seriously examines the details of Washington’s life will find that, more often than not, even the myths are based in truth.

Being George Washington is organized around a few of the major events in Washington’s life.  For me, it is a bittersweet reminder of how little the man is appreciated today.  Unfortunately, most Americans know almost nothing about the man to whom they, and millions around the world, owe so much.   Gilbert Stuart’s famous painting of Washington (on the dollar bill) does not reflect the man he was.  By the time Stuart did that painting, Washington was a shadow of his younger self.  It does not reflect his character, instead the world sees a doughy-faced guy in a wig.  To me, this is very sad.

Being George Washington paints a different kind of picture.  Like Ben Franklin, Washington put a great deal of effort into his character.  There is no better example in American history of why character counts.

Washington realized the importance of virtue and character, even as a young man.  He assiduously studied and sought to apply The Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.  He must have realized the connection between comportment and character formation.  Acting with dignity yields dignity. Beck points out that these “rules” are much more than “a simple grab bag of table manners.”

.. when taken together, these often ordinary watchwords fashioned an extraordinary mosaic that spoke of consideration toward others and modesty regarding self.

Washington  zealously guarded his reputation, but at the same time, he repeatedly put the needs of his country, before his own.  Putting others before self is humility.

Washington demonstrated humility time and time again throughout his life in both his words and deeds.  When asked to lead the Continental Army, he admitted his fears of being unequal to the task.

Mr. President, Tho’ I am truly sensible of the high Honour done me, in this Appointment, yet I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust: However, as the Congress desire it, I will enter upon the momentous duty, and exert every power I possess in their service, and for support of the glorious cause. I beg they will accept my most cordial thanks for this distinguished testimony of their approbation.

But, lest some unlucky event should happen, unfavourable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.

As to pay, Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress, that, as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, at the expence of my domestic ease and happiness, I do not wish to make any proffit from it. I will keep an exact Account of my expences. Those, I doubt not, they will discharge, and that is all I desire.

Washington spent the next 8 years suffering for his decision, but ultimately triumphed over the most powerful nation on the planet – with a ragtag army of volunteers.

Being George Washington shows how Washington persisted in spite of adversity and frequently made the tough call, even when he had to do so in opposition to those advising him.  Time and time again, it was Washington who made the difference.  Here are some of these critical points:

• Washington’s decision to attack Trenton and Princeton
• Washington’s deft handling of the Conway Cabal
• Washington’s stewardship of near dictatorial powers granted by the Continental Congress
• Washington defused the Newburgh Conspiracy
• Washington relinquished command of the Army
• Washington’s leadership of the Constitutional Convention
• Washington handled domestic insurrection
• Washington voluntarily relinquished the presidency

Being George Washington covers not just the events, but also delves into their significance and asks what might have happened had Washington not been who he was.  The most powerful illustration of this is in the chapters covering the Newburgh Conspiracy.

From a military standpoint the war was over.  However, the fate of the new nation was literally in Washington’s hands.  Many of the officers and men in the Continental Army had not been paid in years.  Promises were perpetually broken and desperate and destitute men who had sacrificed and risked their lives for their country had had enough.  A year earlier, one of Washington’s men, Colonel Nicola expressed the men’s feelings in a letter, in which he asked Washington to assume the role of monarch.

The injuries the troops have received in their pecuniary rights have been, and still continue to be too obvious to require a particular detail, or to have escaped your Excellencies [sic] notice.

This gives us a dismal prospect for the time to come, and much reason to fear the future provision promised to officers by Congress.

We who have born [sic] the heat and labour of the day will be forgot and neglected by such as reap the benefits without suffering any of the hardships.

We have no doubt of Congresses [sic] intention to act uprightly, but greatly fear that, by the interested voices of others, there abilities will not be equal to the task.

…

Colonel Nicola ends this justification by suggesting that perhaps monarchies aren’t so bad after all.

Some people have connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to separate them, it may therefore, be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title more moderate, but if all other things were once adjusted I believe strong argument might be produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantages.

…

Washington immediately wrote back and sternly rebuked his friend for suggesting such a thing.   However, while Washington could refuse a coronation, he could not salve all of the righteous indignation described in Nicole’s letter.  The men were angry, and group of officers proposed holding Congress hostage to their demands, a military coup.  Washington got wind of their plans and resolved to stop them.  Beck points out the loneliness of this particular resolution,

For perhaps the very first time, George Washington felt completely alone. 

He had always been able to count on the support of his men, the devotion of his staff, and the dedication of this army.  Through the very worst of times, and from the loneliest of days, from the lowliest private to this senior generals, his men had always stood at his side.

But now they did not stand with him; they stood against him.

And that cut to the core.

In the end, it would come down to the faith his men had in Washington’s character and reputation.  Neither good character nor good reputation are attained over night.  Fortunately for millions of Americans and countless millions more around the world, Washington had dedicated his life to perfecting his character and reputation.  He was the one man to whom the angry troops would listen.  And listen they did.  It was not Washington’s appeal to their patriotism, or his reiteration of broken promises that held sway. It was his simple humility in admitting that he now needed glasses to read yet another promise made by a member of Congress.

Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service to my country.

These words, spoken by almost any other man, might have been dismissed as so much stuff.  But these men had seen, first hand, the toll that the prior 8 years had wrought from their General.  And with that, the crisis was averted.  They could not go against him.

Beck’s analysis of this event is very insightful.

The unbiased march of time has proven the Newburgh Conspiracy to be one of the most important episodes of the entire American Revolution.  In fact, many historians recognize it as one of the most, if not the most, dangerous hour the United States has ever faced.  Had General Washington failed to pacify his angry army, and his men gone forward with venting their rage upon the Congress, the nation may well have drowned in the blood of a civil war.

…

What would the next two centuries have been like had the United States not been the united states.  How different would our world be right now, how different would it have been for our ancestors, how different for our children, had the country — free from the oppression of a foreign king — turned to a monarchy of its own?

These may seem like rhetorical questions, but they’re not; they’re vital ones because they force us to think about the fact that one person at one moment in time can define history for generations to come.

And this is the point of Being George Washington.  It’s not a book written to convey history.  It’s not even a biographical hagiography of its subject.  Being George Washington was written to show the difference character makes, and to illustrate, by example, how to live a life of integrity, dignity and worth.  Beck and his team are to be commended for an excellent book.

1. The fountainhead of American government and society—the most fundamental idea of all—is this:  God is the mighty author of our being and the moral authority for our laws.  The Declaration of Independence contains four references to deity.  They are “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge of the world” and “divine Providence.”  These make clear that in the political theory articulated by the Founders of America, God, not government, is source of our freedom, our sovereignty, our rights, our justice, our human dignity and all else which creates a good society and a society which is good.  Therefore patriots recognize that we are “one Nation under God” and honor it in word and deed.
2. The corollary idea to that, which our Founders likewise held, is this:  We are made in the image and likeness of God, and by virtue of our spiritual nature, every human being is sacred, sovereign and inviolable.  Therefore patriots recognize that “all men are created equal” and honor it in word and deed.
3. Freedom applies to all aspects of our existence, from the physical through the intellectual-emotional and the social-political to the spiritual.  Liberty is a subset of freedom and refers to the social-political aspect of freedom.  (Incidentally, John Adams called  God “the Spirit of Liberty.”  I’ll discuss that when we get to the tenth principle.)
4. Freedom is indivisible, so its various aspects are intimately related.  Any diminishment of freedom in one aspect of our lives (such as economic, civil, religious or political) diminishes freedom in all other aspects.
5. God’s purpose in granting us freedom is to use it to show forth His glory in our entire existence.  (Some Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, referred to America as the New Jerusalem and the New Israel.  By that they meant not a Jewish nation but rather a God-centered society whose will was to reflect heaven on earth.  In that way, our pursuit of happiness would be permanently and abundantly fulfilled.)
6. Because all freedom comes from God, it carries an inherent responsibility to use it properly—i.e., morally and lawfully—to fulfill our obligation to our Creator.  Freedom and responsibility are therefore intimately related; without responsibility, liberty becomes libertinism or immoral, destructive behavior.  Freedom is never license to do as we please, but only as we ought.
7. Our political experiment in self-government is predicated on each citizen governing himself morally and taking personal responsibility for his or her words and deeds.  The result is a godly society dedicated to glorifying our Creator.  However, an immoral people is incapable of self-government.  Any government it may set up will devalue honor, honesty and civility; it will legalize plundering, abridge rights and erode freedom.  Patriots are therefore responsible, law-abiding members of society who uphold the principles of American government and honor our national heritage.
8. Government has always been the greatest enemy of freedom, and therefore our Founders wrote a Constitution which established a minimal government for what was deemed necessary at the federal level, leaving all other powers and rights to the states and to the people themselves.  The authority of the federal government was delegated by “we the people” and its powers were strictly enumerated and narrowly defined.  Our Founders wanted freedom from government, not dependence on government.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, in simplest terms, a carefully devised system to govern the government, not the people.  They were not written to restrict the citizens of America; they were written to restrict the government and to protect our inherent liberties and rights.
9. Although God is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence provided the philosophical framework for the system of ordered liberty established by the Constitution.  Moreover, the Framers expected that government officials would conduct themselves in accordance with that religio-moral view of life.  In fact, the American theory of government has a clear demand for moral behavior by those holding governmental office; it reflects the Founders’ understanding that God demands moral behavior of us all as the foundation for growth to deeper understanding of our nature and destiny. Elected officials are required to take an oath or to affirm that they will support the Constitution.  Obviously, supporting the Constitution means upholding and honoring the fundamental principles which it embodies.  An official who egregiously violates that understanding is subject to impeachment, whether his or her misconduct involves high crimes (violations of law) or misdemeanors (grossly immoral misbehavior).
10. Our Founders wisely separated church and state, but not God and state.  How could they when the Declaration of Independence says God is the basis of our nation?  We have a secular government but a religious society.  Our government makes no religious test of civic officials but nevertheless requires moral behavior of them, using moral standards arising from religious traditions, especially the Ten Commandments of Judeo-Christianity which became the basis of English—and hence American—civil law.  God and nation are one.  However, the Creator whom we recognize as the fountainhead of American government and society is not the exclusive property of any denomination.  The First Amendment prohibits any denomination from becoming the established, official religion of America; likewise it prohibits government from interfering with religious freedom and thereby allows we the people to have full public expression of religion according to one’s conscience.

Those are the ten fundamental principles.  Of all political documents in history, only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution offer a seamless theory and practice of enlightened government. Collectively, they address all levels of our existence.  Think of it as a pyramid such as the one on the Great Seal of the United States, with the Eye of Providence above the pyramid representing the nation.

First and foremost, our founding documents recognize God, the Spirit of Liberty, as the source of all life, all liberty, all rights and all good.  That is the Eye of Providence above the pyramid.

Next, in the Declaration of Independence, they enunciate the basic principles of liberty descending from God to be applied in the body politic.  That is the top of the pyramid.

Then, in the Constitution, they articulate the architecture of liberty, which describes how our federal government is constructed, and in the Bill of Rights they enumerate the inalienable rights of each individual citizen.  That is the middle of the pyramid.  These architectural plans make secure the blessings of liberty as they establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Last of all, they demand and encourage elected officials and civil servants of integrity, calling on them to enact and enforce laws, policies and practices of liberty, which are the base of the pyramid.

At every level of human activity, from the physical through the mental to the spiritual, from the individual through the local, state and federal government, they declare God as the divine basis and governor of our existence.

However, without public recognition of the self-evident truth that God is the transcendental basis of our government, our social order and our moral character as a people, this nation will not stand.  And while it is true that America was founded primarily by Christians, the God to whom we Americans appealed in the Declaration of Independence is the transcendent and nondenominational Creator of the world.  God, in America, can never become the exclusive property of any denomination or religion; the First Amendment assures that and religious tolerance for all. God remains, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “the common Father…of man.”

The War for Independence which founded our nation is over, but the American Revolution goes on because it is a spiritual revolution of global dimensions.  Our revolution is unique in history: the proclamation of liberty for all, individual sovereignty, self-determination, inalienable rights, equality of opportunity, justice under the rule of law, and human dignity for all, derived from God and guaranteed through constitutional republican government of the people, by the people and for the people—all for the purpose of enabling us to find individual and collective happiness. Implementing that revolution is called the American Spirit.

May the American Spirit embrace the Earth.

The Constitution requires the President of the United States to give Congress information about “the state of the Union.” This presidential report was meant as one of the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. Every other president has been respectful of the other branches during the annual address—except for this president. For example, in 1862, Abraham Lincoln wrote, “I do not forget the gravity which should characterize a paper addressed to the Congress of the nation by the Chief Magistrate of the nation, nor do I forget that some of you are my seniors, nor that many of you have more experience than I in the conduct of public affairs. Yet I trust that in view of the great responsibility resting upon me you will perceive no want of respect to yourselves in any undue earnestness I may seem to display.”

President Obama, on the other hand, uses the State of the Union Address to belittle the other two branches. He lectures those who have offended his sensitivities or voiced disagreement … and threatens all who exercise their constitutional powers to oppose his agenda. He is certain that his path is the sole course for the country.  “The American people know what the right choice is. So do I.” In other words, oppose me, and you oppose not me, but the American people.

President Obama must believe the state of the union is copacetic—If I’m allowed to borrow a piece of slang from the depression era. He says, “the state of our Union is getting stronger.” He lauded his progress in world affairs, and described a resurgent economy unrecognizable to most Americans who live outside the booming environs of the beltway. But no one is allowed to disagree. He regally stated that, “anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”

The message is clear: if you disagree, you are against the American people or ignorant.

In his report on the State of the Union he avoided mentioning what might be his most lasting impact on our nation: he has weakened our constitutional form of government by taking imperial action whenever Congress rudely balks at approving his schemes. Actually, he did mention it by promising more of the same. “With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow.” That’s good to know because his actions have worked so well to date.

To wrap things up, President Obama related the nation to Seal Team 6. It was an odd end to a shoddy speech. He was celebratory of Seal Team 6 successes, while at the same time calling on citizens to back their Commander-in-Chief as he charges “into darkness and danger.” If he wants us to watch his back, then he needs to face in another direction.

All three branches are meant to be equal, so the president does not appear before congress as a supplicant, but neither does the State of the Union Address provide a captured audience so the president can scold those who have expressed disagreement with his policies. The fact that President Obama stoops to this kind of behavior is an indicator that his persuasive skills are highly over-rated. The State of the Union Address under Obama has become a farce and has greatly diminished the office of the President of the United States. As a supposed constitutional scholar, President Obama should be ashamed.

James D. Best is the author of the Steve Dancy Tales and Tempest at Dawn, a novel about the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Look for his forthcoming book, Principled Action, Lessons from the Origins of the American Republic.

With Musket and Tomahawk

In With Musket and Tomahawk, General Schuyler comes out much more favorably than he does in Randall’s biography of Ethan Allen, and much more complete than in Chernow’s Hamilton.  (Schuyler was Hamilton’s father-in-law.)  Schuyler was in charge of the northern department when his subordinate, General St. Clair, chose to abandon Fort Ticonderoga at the onset of the Wilderness campaign in 1777.  The surrender of the fort was a blow to American prestige as it had been captured only a short time before by Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen with a cadre of Green Mountain Boys.

Allen does not make an appearance in With Musket and Tomahawk, but one of his foremost lieutenants, Seth Warner does.  This book does not mention the tension between the New York General Schuyler and the Warner’s Green Mountain boys, although prior to the war there was considerable strife between them over contested land grants.  Warner fares well in Logusz’s telling of the campaign, as does Benedict Arnold.  When Congress replaced Schuyler with Horatio Gates,  Arnold’s fortunes waned.  The two men detested one another and Gates sought to replace him and took credit for all of Arnold’s achievements.  It was Arnold who led the attack at Saratoga. He was a phenomenal and fearless leader of troops.   He was in the thick of the battle and was finally forced from the field when he was shot in the leg.  Gates, on the other hand, was somewhat less impressive as a warrior.  Subsequently he not only blackguarded Arnold but was also later involved in the Conway Cabal, in which he attempted to discredit and replace George Washington through a whispering campaign.

It is interesting to compare the reactions of Schuyler and Arnold.  Schuyler went on to continue to support patriot cause in spite of his shabby treatment.  Arnold eventually turned traitor.

Logusz doesn’t confine his narrative to well known patriots and loyalists, however.  He also sneaks in numerous anecdotes about lesser-known characters like patriot sniper Timothy Murphy.  Murphy had a custom made double-barreled long rifle with which he dispatched many a British officer as depicted in the following account:

Perched high up in a thick oak tree, Timothy Murphy sighted a high-ranking British officer, dressed in an immaculate uniform astride a white horse.  Undoubtedly, the sight of the beautiful pure white horse was what first caught Murphy’s eye.  The patriot rifleman also concluded that the man on the exotic white animal was one of high stature.  No less than a general.

It would, of course, be a long shot.  Well over 300 yards, if not 400.  But it could be done.  With an eagle eye, Murphy began to sight in.  He would wait until the horseman had halted.  As long as he reined his horse back and forth, Murphy was in no position to take him down. 

…

Reining his horse around to the front, General Fraser faced the patriots directly.  Sitting fully upright behind the 24th Foot, he began to issue orders.  Not far behind, General Burgoyne was on his horse observing Fraser.  “If anyone can save this situation and turn it around, it will be Fraser.”

Or so Burgoyne thought.

As Burgoyne was observing and Fraser was directing the defense, Murphy was slowly squeezing the trigger from hundreds of yards away.  Suddenly, Burgoyne witnessed Fraser toppling from his horse.  …

Murphy shows up several other times in Logusz’s telling of the campaign.

Readers of WWTFT may recognize the name General William Hull from several clippings pulled from the Niles Weekly Register about the surrender of Detroit at the beginning of the War of 1812.  During the Wilderness Campaign of 1777, Major Hull distinguished himself with the 8th Massachusetts militia. At a place called Freeman’s farm, during the first battle of Saratoga …

The 8th Massachusetts was virtually decimated.  With its commander killed and well over 50 of its personnel dead, wounded, or missing, the 8th was on the verge of collapse.  Major Hull assumed command.  Though suffering a deep bayonet slash across his lower stomach, he continued to lead.  Despite its losses, the units surviving militiamen continued to resist ferociously. …

And this was the reason that President Madison chose to commute Hull’s court martial sentence of death, after his surrender of Detroit.

These are but a few of the many interesting people and events covered in this book.   Unfortunately, it’s difficult to adequately convey more in the scope of a brief review.  However, one last thing that does bear mentioning is the beautiful art work of H. David Wright included in the middle of the book.  This was a nice addition to the book.

With Musket and Tomahawk is well-researched and very thorough (although the author did confuse Daniel Webster and Noah Webster).  It is extensively footnoted and contains an impressive bibliography.  Logusz does his best to enliven the telling and conveys a lot of information in an interesting and informative history.  This reader is looking forward to the second volume.

Even before the Founders created a unique republic, Americans were a different breed than their European cousins. The American colonists had sailed to the New World with little more than they could carry in their arms, and in less than two hundred years they had turned a raw wilderness into one of the most prosperous places on earth.  Philadelphia was the grandest city in North America with a busy harbor and myriad industries, New England ships plied all seven seas, southern planters grew rich on tobacco, trades flourished throughout the colonies, and anyone with determination could own land.  This was the Founders’ world, and even if some never saw fulfillment of all they desired, individualism was already firmly entrenched in peoples’ minds.

Pioneers who ventured far from home across a dangerous ocean were, by nature, adventurous and ambitious.  Unhampered by close government scrutiny and blessed with abundant resources and free markets, ambition and raw energy drove astonishing growth.  Best of all, nobility didn’t have a claim on created wealth. Everyone, independent of station, could participate in any enterprise they chose and own the fruits of their labor or wits.  Our inherited culture encourages us to extend opportunity to everyone. We may occasionally forget the founding principles and misstep, but we invariably return to the path set out by our Founders.  This makes Americans very different from the rest of the world. Private property rights had built a relatively classless society, or at least a society where movement between classes was generally unrestricted. Thus was born the American Dream.

The Founders came from every walk of life, and they worked together to build this great country.  George Washington was a wealthy plantation owner, but his top officers in the Revolution included Major General Nathanael Greene, who entered the war as a militia private and was the son of a small farmer; Major General Henry Knox, a Boston bookstore owner who later became President Washington’s Secretary of War; and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton, born illegitimate in the West Indies to a struggling mother who died when Hamilton was thirteen.

Some denigrate the Founders by falsely claiming that most of them were wealthy, yet wealth has never been a disqualifier in America.  The American Dream is that anyone can rise to any level in our society, independent of their station, gender, or race.  The highest achievers in almost every endeavor—whether sports, business, science, or any of the arts—are richly compensated.  To disqualify the rich merely because of their success snatches the American Dream away from everyone.  The American people intuitively understood this and have previously rejected class warfare.

Which bring us to the original question: Can class warfare win an election? The White House firmly believed so until this past Saturday.  Since summer, President Obama has relentlessly pounded the class warfare theme.  His surrogates have made the issue front page news, and Tea Partiers have been displaced by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  The campaign was gleeful that they had so adroitly teed up Governor Romney as a super white guy, who is a charter member of the despised banker class, and despite his enormous wealth, had paid a pittance in taxes while hiding great stashes of money in the Cayman Islands.  The icing on the cake was that he would look like a hypocrite to campaign against Obama’s greatest weakness—ObamaCare.  This was going to be a slam dunk.

Except … South Carolinians endorsed someone else.  And Mr. Gingrich knows how to channel the Founders and get the populous to embrace the American Dream as originally intended.  The class warfare strategy looked good on Friday—not so good on Monday. The Republican establishment may have been aghast at Saturday’s results, but those with an ear to the ground heard a collective “Oops!” from the White House.

I’m not sure if I fully support Newt Gingrich, but I loved the South Carolina primary results.  Let the race begin.

McGurn provides a brief catalogue of the president’s attack on the Constitution beginning with Obama Care, an enormous breach of the Constitution and a huge expansion of government all by itself.

The list is far from exhaustive. He did not include, for example, the virtual take-over of public education. Nor did he mention proposals to expand executive powers that were abandoned (perhaps temporarily) when they caused a public furor.

Members of the administration reflect the president’s disdain for the Constitution and the public. Most recently NTSB (National Safety Transportation Board) chairwoman Deborah Hersman, defending the recommendation that texting and cell phone use in automobiles be outlawed, stated,  “It’s going to be very unpopular with some people.”  But she proclaimed, “We’re not here to win a popularity contest. We’re here to do the right thing.”

Perhaps while the Board is making sweeping recommendations, it should ban children as well as cell phones from automobiles as they, too, may distract drivers. Hersman’s arrogance is breathtaking.

But not so breathtaking as the president’s open attack on constitutional checks and balances when he recently vowed to circumvent Congress if it doesn’t do his bidding. The president said he would use executive fiat to enact his economic program.

The premise of the president’s program is that government intervention is necessary to achieve social and economic justice.

The findings of the recently released 2011 Index of Economic Freedom speak to that claim. The index, jointly sponsored by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, measures 10 components of economic freedom in 179 countries around the world and their degree of economic success.

The 2011 edition of the Index confirms findings from previous editions regarding the various tangible benefits of living in freer societies. Not only are higher levels of economic freedom associated with higher per capita incomes, but greater economic freedom is also strongly correlated to overall well-being, which takes into account such factors as health, education, security, and personal freedom.

In short, economic freedom is key to economic well being. For example, countries that are “mostly unfree” have levels of poverty intensity three times higher than countries that have more economic freedom. The converse is also true. Countries that have high levels of economic freedom have much higher levels of per capita GDP. It is also true that economically freer countries do a better job protecting the environment than highly regulated countries.

The world’s largest economy, the United States, has suffered one of the largest declines in economic freedom over the last 10 years, pushing it into tenth place. Much of this decline is a result of higher government spending and borrowing and lower scores for the legal structure and property rights components.

Economic freedom is not only key to economic well-being, it is also key to freedom in general. Hayek, in  The Road to Serfdom, asserts that economic control results in totalitarianism.  There is no separating economic ends from other aspects of life.

… in economic matters, we are free to decide what is more, and what less important.  … To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to always be controlled, unless we declare our specific purpose.  Or, since when we declare our specific purpose we shall also have to get it approved, we should really be controlled in everything.

The findings of the Index of Dependence on Government, published by the Heritage Foundation every year for the past eight, are also relevant.

Not only did the federal government effectively take over half of the U.S. economy and expand public-sector debt by more than all previous governments combined, but it also oversaw the largest single-year expansion in total government debt in U.S. history. Much of that growth in new debt can be traced to dependence-creating government programs.

Three years of the Obama administration’s unconstitutional policies have accelerated the decline of economic freedom and hindered economic recovery. The president’s hopey-feely constituency might want to think about what America will be like after another five.