Market economy must be our future

The economic battlefield is strewn with the lost swords and shattered shields of failed corporations, and the age of the free market seems to have ended. Steel owls of liberal orthodoxy seem to be standing about the grave of the free market, and everywhere the controlled market seems to be the wave of the future. Still, in this melee of "reform" the free market remains the superior system and we must return to it if we ever hope to recover. Doubtless it has gone astray and to get it back on track will require tough choices in regard to spending, regulation and above all conservative theory. The rise and continued eminence of the United States has been possible according to a number of features. A resilient well meaning people, significant checks and balances on government power, and a system that fostered diversity all contributed greatly. But in economic matters the success of the United States can be traced to one form: the free market. The silver-shielded hypaspist of the free market is open competition and no other force has made more money, invented more technology and fostered as much growth as competition. As Americans we pride ourselves in a high work ethic and the ability to compete, but somehow in recent decades we have gone far astray from this concept.

In a strange combination of regulation and deregulation the federal government has seriously weakened the tenets of the free market. Excessive regulation and taxes, designed for large corporate entities, disproportionately burdened small business. At the same time, the government's failure to establish clear rules on a host of business issues created the environment for the recent sub-prime collapse. Companies and banks were allowed to grow to a point where they could not be allowed to fail, prompting a stream of endless bailouts.

Recently, failed companies like GM, were absolved by the government of bad business decisions and essentially given a mulligan on incompetence and bad management. Over regulated on one hand and allowed to run wild in the other, many American corporations ran afoul, overextending themselves and making unwise decisions. Normally, such actions would be offset by the competitive aspect of the free market, but the government has shown an unbridled desire to take away this risk thru guarantees and bailouts. Such action only worsens the decline, subsidizing failure and corrupting the free market into a controlled one. Sadly, this treachery is extended by the fact that the various bailouts are financed by an increased tax and debt burden on small businesses and individual families. Lest we forget, the same week GM asked for 17 billion in additional funds they announced mass layoffs of 50,000 workers.

With the recent economic downturn many state that the free market has been disproved and is no longer in play. But in truth this is impossible because the free market hasn’t been in play for a long time. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this and both will need to show bravery and leadership in order to get it back on track. In fact, both must come to the conclusion that the role of government in regard to the economy is to preserve the feasibility of the free market and nothing more.

'Ten Battles' surveys 2500 years

You've heard of the Battle of New Orleans, which ended the War of 1812. You may have heard of the Battle of Cowpens, a key engagement in America's war for independence. But you've likely not heard of the battles of Zama, Carrhae, Badr, Stamford Bridge, Sinop, and Khalkin Gol, nor of the Sack of Khwarezmia, nor of Israel's brilliant and epoch-making Operation Isotope in 1972.

They all deserve to be remembered today, however and all are discussed in a book I've just published; the press release follows:

Ten Battles is an exciting new book from Military Writers Press designed for the enjoyment and information of all those interested in history, the military, and important battles.

This is a striking exploration of history that can be enjoyed by both the academic and the general audience. Immediately and with enjoyable prose, author James J. Krefft takes his readers through the story of ten of history’s most important but least known battles. In a field replete with discussion of well known battles, Ten Battles examines seldom-discussed engagements that had lasting and important consequences of global significance. The book examines each of its case studies in detail and in context, discussing the prelude, actual engagement, aftermath and result with equal vigor. Readers are dazzled right off by the discussion of two Classical battles that were essential in Roman History.

The first of these is Zama, a keen engagement fought at the end of the 2nd Punic War that ended Carthage and catapulted Rome to Empire. Ten Battles then takes its readers to the desert of Iraq, where over 2000 years ago a battle was joined between horse and sword for the fate of Persia and perhaps the long term survival of the Roman Empire. Carrhae leaps off of the pages and engages the reader in one of histories most asymmetric battles, on that had lasting implications for Rome, Persia and the progress of Western Civilization in general. Next on the list of Ten Battles is Badr, an obscure and small scale affair that would have epic consequences for one of today's most prolific religions: Islam. At the time no more that a skirmish between desert tribes, Badr was still drastic as it set the context that Islam would use for expansion for the next 1000 years.

Next comes 1066, and an important battle fought in the wilds of England between Anglo-Saxon and Viking. Angry Vikings and angry Saxons clash at Stamford Bridge with nothing less then the future of the Vikings, England and even the Norman conquest at stake. The first half of the book is finished off with a discussion of the fame and infamy of Genghis Khan and his Mongol horseman. The Sack of Khwarezmia is a tragic tale, one of siege warfare, indirect theater based warfare and shameless slaughter. But Khwarezmia is also an important turning point in the course of Central Asia and the wider Mongol conquest.

Ten Battles starts you with 5 interesting and important battles but then gives you five more. In the second half of the book readers are taken through: Cowpens in the American Revolution, New Orleans in the War of 1812, then the Russians and Ottomans face off at Sinop, the Japanese and Soviets at Khalkhin Gol and finally the IDF and Terrorists during Operation Isotope in 1972. Ten Battles is a fast paced and entertaining book that informs readers on battles that might otherwise slip through the cracks. In elegant word in gives the reader a detailed and manageable course in the basics of battle, military campaign, and historical repercussion. Ten Battles answers fundamental questions about the progress of history by looking at root causes and the results of the formative events of some of histories most important trends. By understanding why things happened as they did we get a better idea of how to move forward with our future.

Excerpts from Ten Battles

** Just as an argument can be made for his brilliance, another can be made that Hannibal was another general whose spectacular tactical and strategic ability took him the length of the field, but not into the end zone. Unable to finish, he was betrayed far from home and died to join the likes of other spectacular but likewise unsuccessful commanders such as Rommel, Lee, Napoleon, and Attila.-Ten Battles, Zama

** A contingent of 40,000 Turks and slave soldiers had been supplemented by 60,000 irregular conscripts, and city fathers had amassed over three years of provisions in granaries and stores. Containers with water had been placed throughout the city, and the streets had been widened to inhibit the spread of fires. With all this said, it would take the Mongols only three days to take Samarkand.-Ten Battles, Khwarezmia

** Some Japanese units made it out of the Soviet encirclement, but when Komatsubara reached the safety of Japanese territory he had only four hundred survivors, meaning the 23rd Division had suffered over 90 percent casualties.-Ten Battles, Khalkhin-Gol

** In a world rife with Jihad, today’s governments would not have special-forces CT without this one small-scale battle fought in May 1972 at Lod Airport east of Tel Aviv, Israel. Operation Isotope pioneered the strategy, tactics, and toolkit of special-forces CT, and the engagement should be credited for what it accomplished and what it launched.-Ten Battles, Operation Isotope

364-174 in context

As I write, liberal barons and the monkeys with knives known as the MSM are attempting to sculpt a 2008 narrative. In it, well-groomed adherents to the fallacy of the disassociated middle tell of an Obama whose character alone carried him to victory. This victory is one that is said to be "epic," "watershed," and on par with the elections of 1980, 1932, or 1860. However, in its weary heart, this upcoming liberal fantasy, which we should all expect to be shouted at us rather loud, is in serious error. From its heights, in metaphor, heights the same as the courts of Adad, every bit of the theory overstates and draws the wrong conclusion from 2008’s final tally.

To understand 2008 any sensible observer must first look and history for a broader perspective on the electoral map. In addition, one must also draw the correct conclusions by measuring available facts against tangibly set criteria. Currently the most common error made in analysis of the 2008 electoral map is to use the raw electoral vote as a change in the national political wind. Indeed, from this perspective Mr. Obama’s 190 electoral- vote victory seems quite potent and 2008 a watershed election.

However, the important criteria for judging shifts in the presidential political wind, is not, in fact, the raw difference but the four-year swing in multiplier, the four-year swing numerically and the percentage victory over one's opponent. This is a quantification that is quite sensible, as in order to accurately judge change one must look at the entirety of the before and after picture.

In 2004 Mr. Bush won by 35 EV, meaning that the change for the Democrats from 2004 to 2008 is +224. For Obama, this means he flipped 112 votes at a multiplier over Kerry’s total of 1.45 and a percentage over opponent of +33%.

This seems impressive, and it is, in some ways, but it is not a sea change and pales compared to all other major ideological shifts in the last 100 years of U.S. Presidential History. In the last 40 years, three "sea change" elections have happened: coming in 1968, 1980 and 1992. In the previous 40 years came another three, coming in 1932, 1952 and finally 1960. Now let us look at the numbers in two examples.

● 1932 was good for FDR as he won the election by 413 EV. But now consider that in 1928 Herbert C. Hoover had crushed Alfred E. Smith by 357 EV. What this means is that in 1932, FDR and friends came in at a cataclysmic +770 and a flip of 385. But it is in the multiplier and percentage that FDR really shows his muscle and the nature of a watershed election is shown. FDR’s swing multiplier in 1932 was 5.42 and his percentage over opponent was +77.7%.

● Nov. 4th 1968 was a good one for Nixon as that night he stood at +544 and had flipped 272 EV. But again, here, the multiplier stands out as Nixon won 5.78 times the GOP’s 1964 total. Nixon had a more modest percentage victory at +20.9%, but nonetheless a multiplication of 5.78 stands out like rice in the salt shaker.

The closest Obama comes to a watershed election is in the percentage of victory over opponent. But this is arguably the least practical advantage amongst the numbers discussed here, and it is also trumped by victory percentages like +81.6 by Reagan in 1980 and by the Gipper again in 1984 at an astonishing +94%. In the other categories of multiplier and EV gain Obama falls far short of historical comparisons. 2008 was a good year for Obama, after all he won, but in context his victory is more of a battleground one then an epic one.

Ideologies lie and the knee-jerk analysis of the MSM misleads, but numbers don’t. While the 2008 presidential is sobering for the GOP and requires a decisive comeback in both means and ideas, it’s not as epic as some would have it seem.

So don’t panic, and let's get back to work!

Enough with the Euro-smugness

From east to west, living room to board room, Americans are watching a slew of disturbing TV news stories . The focus of the citizen is overwhelmingly on the economy and his or her own, modest and hard earned treasure pile. This is not surprising, after all the Dow is behaving like a drunken clam and the finance sector is as chaotic as a college department meeting. The media is constantly rattling everyone’s cages and our commercial breaks are now plagued with the most annoying ads known to man: those of the goldbug.

In the depths of an election the worry meter on many Americans is high. We all want answers to our economic question and, in general, want to see this country restored to a place of prosperity, power, and might. But across the eastern ocean, in the world-weary lands of Western Europe, a strange and different dialogue is bubbling to the surface. In it, the cause for America’s troubles is not practical or function but moral and the feeling is not of despair but strangely, of glee.

As the United States hits a rather large bump in the road, many in Europe’s chattering class are taking up a rather despicable tone. This tone, in the forefront hammers home the idea that America’s Economic woes derive somehow from moral failing, that her age of dominance is over, and that both are happy occasions to root onward.

Moral supremacy and the role as judge has always been a part of the European tradition. Since 2000, this proclivity has been primarily focused against the United States and Israel in discussions that usually, either, apologize for Islamic terrorism, lift up the European ‘way’ as just, or simply scapegoat America for a host of domestic European problems. Recently, full and front page articles have popped up in major European papers claiming that the age of American dominance is over.

Strangely these articles and comments come with, not just a statement of fact, but a moral judgment and indictment of American and her way of life. Quite often the words ‘redneck’ ‘bubba’ and ‘empire’ appear when authors mention America and her apparently lost power.

Moreover, in these periodicals there is also an obvious bit of smug cheer. That is to say, that Americans current crisis is not just mentioned it is cheered on with a form of moiling academic demonology. In these circles, somehow, the financial troubles of America and Americans is actually a good thing.

Such feelings and statements are as uninformed as they are vile. To state things as they are and point out fault is one thing; but to actually root for calamity and chaos is quite another. Moreover, it is quite self-destructive. An important fact seems to escape most European chatterers, that is, if America ‘goes down’ that Europe will not be far behind.

We have already seen this as European markets have tumbled in the wake of U.S. financial problems. In a more abstract sense, a removal of U.S. power abroad would force Europe to actually grow up. Specifically, they would have to actually spend money on national defense and foreign policy as opposed to simply relying on the ample subsidy provided by both the United States and NATO.

The historian or more mature reader can attest to the fact that such disruptions from Europe are not exactly new. For years, on many European College Campuses, it has been both fashionable and convenient to viciously assail the United States. Such criticism usually comes in the form of vaguely defined critiques of U.S. policies and or a bizarrely styled bit of political wishful thinking that is not founded in the realities of America or Europe.

Even further back it should be remembered that in the 19th century it was the keen desire of many European Nations to subjugated American foreign policy and behavior to their will and call. Happily this did not happen and it is important that it does not happen now. Listening to friends is fine, but doing whatever they say while they slap you in the face is not.

Unfortunately, it is likely that these academic and anemic voices will continue to blame the United States with the smug liberal tone of Maddow, Mahr, Obama and Pelosi. This blame game will probably disparage the United States for the global economic crisis without the responsibility of say acknowledging that Europe readily invested in America and made economic blunders of its own. This is a shame and will only hinder Europe’s own recovery.

Relations between Europe and America have always been complex and full of recrimination. I like Europe, I like their food, silly accents and women, and I also share their desire for close relations. But I don’t appreciate their chattering classes smug back biting and moral judgment. I’d also say that if Europe wants closer relations and wants to influence U.S. policy, it would help if they don’t constantly attack the U.S. with puerile name calling and instead replace it with a real dialogue.

MSM anoint selves as newsmakers

Watching the debate between Senator McCain and Pharaoh Obama was an interesting and joyful evening for me. After all, we can probably agree that there is no greater pleasure then to watch or participate in a verbal battle of wills and ideas. That is of course, until you're married, but I digress. In any event I was quite happy to watch the debate. Happy, because debate and discussion is one of the fundamental principles behind the greatness of America and her people. While some shy away from public speaking, it is important to note that debate matters not just for the debater but for the audience as well. Debates provide everyone who watches them a unique perspective into both the ideas and qualifications of an idea, a candidate or a proposal. They are an integral part of America and if you don’t like them, move to Iran. But I found that the 9/26 debate gave me insight not so much into the candidates as into the media themselves.

As soon as the debate had finished, and in some cases before it began, the MSM was in high jabber. With preordained conclusions these pundits crashed into the discussion with confusing, factually ignorant and plainly biased commentary. Any ideas of reporting the news seems to have gone out the window as the MSM made a longwinded and really rather pathetic attempt to make the news. No sooner had the debate ended then the MSM attempted to give the debate ‘tie’ to Obama. Strangely this award came with claims that the debate was ‘about what we expected’ from people who for weeks had insinuated the first debate would be the first miracle of Obama. Amidst flurries of self-congratulation, led by CNN, the MSM made a sincere attempt to package the debate in the terms of their world and not that of the American voter. For weeks we have seen signs of this; and from the plainly unfair and simply mean treatment of Gov. Palin to the nearly dictatorial claims about Sen. McCain that now, daily, dot the pages of the NYT.

But the behavior of the MSM in regard to the debate and now the financial crisis has broken new ground. Ground where all facts go out the window and where major MSM providers have no problem altering the facts so as to rattle the cages of everyday Americans.

Now I wish that the media wasn’t the chimera of graft and smear that it is today and I wish that I didn’t even have to talk about them. But unfortunately, for me and for you, I do. I do because the media has interjected itself into the current political debate in an all-consuming manner as judge, jury and executioner. The political media today is not about America, it is not even about the news any more; it is about only itself -- an all-consuming orthodoxy that makes the form of debate a sad panda and me a sadder kitten.

For months now some principal media imps have done nothing but apotheosize Obama and run down McCain. I am sure you have seen it, let it be Rachel Maddow calling the idea of Americans voting for McCain ‘twisted’, or Keith Olbermann essentially blaming the entire financial mess on John McCain.

But, in this long, long, very long election a few media types have stuck out as true servants of Mordor. Acolytes of Morgoth, they go by the names; Maddow, Cafferty, Olbermann, Milbank, Hewitt, Beck, Holmes, Roland S. Martin, Toobin, and the bear himself: Stephen Colbert. These lesser scamps are the grave of facts and the edge of discussion; the true bane of debate. They are puerile and a farce. They demonstrate by action their desire to make the news and not report it. From hill to dale they slant the facts with a desire similar to that of old wicker rotting in the sun. Each has a craft, a parlance of overstatement that ruins even the simplest situation. None seem to have a desire for truth and rarely can they see past themselves.

Now I can’t do much about the sad state of the media but I can write this little piece. This little shot across the bow that lets these forces know that not everyone bows to them. Oh, and also that someone else can use the axe that is literary criticism just as easily as they do.