The Boys of Pointe du Hoc

On this 67th anniversary of D-Day, I was reminded of Reagan's speech on the occasion of the 40th anniversary. Here it is:



A few observations. First, the Soviets never really stood a chance once Reagan was elected. His rhetoric was so powerful and persuasive, it's hard to imagine it emanated from the same office that produced Carter's accommodationist "inordinate fear of Communism" speech a mere seven years earlier. Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. And boy, did Reagan take that lesson to heart. Speak peacefully but prepare for war: in the hands of a master rhetorician the combination was unstoppable.

Of course, it's easy to see that in hindsight. Reagan's genius was that he intuited the right strategy against almost all of the experts.

Second, this speech really illustrates how second-rate was George W. Bush. Bush tried but never could really convince that Islam was not the enemy, and that conciliation was possible. Reagan did make that clear, even while condemning the "evil empire". Reagan managed to convey that the Soviet regime was the problem, not the Soviet people. With Bush a similar message vis-a-vis Muslims and Islamic regimes was never clear.

Another Entry in the Black Book of Communism

This is truly awful.

A pregnant woman in south China was detained, beaten and forced to have an abortion just a month before her due date because the baby would have violated the country's one-child limit, her husband said Thursday.

Forced abortions are bad enough. But a forced abortion of an eight-month fetus is indistinguishable from murder (even if you don't think the abortion of, say, a one-month fetus is murder). A fetus at that stage is perfectly viable outside the womb. The Chinese cold-bloodedly killed a baby in their mad pursuit of social policy.

Congrats to Liu Xiaobo

This year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is a poke in the eye of China's Communist regime. Finally!

China is trying to block news of the announcement from its own citizens, using the Great Firewall of China and even radio jamming. They claim to be upset because Liu is a "criminal". But he's no murderer - all he's guilty of is "inciting subversion of state power", which is the sort of crime that in the United States is likely to get you elected. In China they throw you in jail.

I don't know much about Liu's story, but if China is throwing this big a hissy fit about his winning the Nobel Prize, he must be a good choice.

Ayn Rand and the New Man

The desire to have Heaven on Earth is dangerous, but hardly novel. You can trace its philosophical origins back at least to Plato (who promoted, in The Republic, the ideal of philosopher-kings who would rule with perfect wisdom and magnanimity). Its social origins surely stretch as far back as human history records: the earliest governments were organized under "god-kings" who reigned with the legimitacy of literal deities.

In modern times - post-Renaissance - this strain of thought can be traced through the French Revolution, through Marx, to Communism, and still looms like a shadow over the world. In Tom Sowell's terminology, this is the "unconstrained vision": the idea that anything is possible if only human nature can be suitably molded. It is a utopian vision. It promises the moon. And with such incredible promises, equally incredible insults to dignity and humanity have been justified. After all, if one is bringing about utopia, what does it matter (say the utopians) if a few million looters are thrown in the gulag? What does it matter if thousands of opponents are guillotined? One cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs.

By contrast, the "constrained vision" holds that human nature sets certain boundaries which we cannot, as a society, hope to exceed. This view of humanity is that which defined the American experiment. James Madison wrote in Federalist 51:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Madison does not imagine, as Plato, that human nature might be molded to produce a class of philosopher-kings. Nor does he imagine, as Marx, that history's inevitable progression through capitalism, then Communism, will result in a New Man capable of exquisite anarchy. Rather, he realizes that men are not and will not be angels, and thus we must deal with them as they are, not as we wish they would be.

And this is where Ayn Rand comes in. A champion of some free-market types, Rand is, unfortunately, no less a utopian than Marx. Her chosen utopia is a bit different in style from most, filled with self-interested, omnicompetent heroes and heroines. In a sense, it is more like Homer than Plato. Galt's Gulch is a modern-day Mount Olympus. But therein lies exactly the flaw: populated by Randian demigods, it is almost literally Heaven on Earth. Rand cannot see how to attain her vision for humanity without creating New Men to her liking. And we've seen where that leads. As Whittaker Chambers writes: "To a gas chamber — go!"

Further reading on this subject: Jason Lee Steorts, Whittaker Chambers.

UPDATE: Also read Richard Reinsch's post on the subject.

Thinking of Iran

Reading this account of the first post-Communist Rolling Stones concert in Prague, I couldn't help but think of Iran. Will they ever be able to look back at the first post-Islamist concert, maybe by Blurred Vision? My vision gets a blurry thinking about it.