International

Echoes of history at 2008 Olympics

The Beijing Olympic Games have replayed not only the international political and cultural story of our generation, but the ultimate, age-old story of heaven and earth themselves. The top three medal-winning countries stand in fascinating relation to one another. Russia, led by Soviet throwback Vladimir Putin who is even now in the process of a hostile occupation of independent Georgia: 36 medals.

China, led by an old-world Communist Politburo which systematically abuses the basic human rights of its people while attempting to project an image of justice and prosperity to the world: 67 medals.

United States, far from perfect but still a beacon of liberty, justice, strength, and real human rights for the oppressed, the downtrodden, the tempest-tossed of the earth, and with one-seventh the population of China: 72 medals.

No mere jingoism or Olympic-week enthusiasm, this synopsis reveals that these Beijing Games are what every Olympic replay is: a microcosm of both the recent and ancient past that produced the athletes and international relations involved in them.

In our case, the recent past is the 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries. Adolf Hitler attempted to use the 1936 Berlin Games in much the same way China is attempting to use the 2008 Beijing Games: as a demonstration and tour de force of his nation's political, social, and economic advancement, and thereby of his own ideology. Unlike China, he also intended to use the games to display German athletes' physical prowess and genetic superiority over people groups such as ethnic Africans.

The delicious irony was not lost on the world, least of all the United States - my mother told me the story with relish in the suburbs of American Georgia when I was but a lad - when James Cleveland "Jesse" Owens, grandson of a slave and son of a sharecropper, collected four gold medals in track and field events in Berlin while Hitler watched: the 100m dash, the long jump, the 200m dash, and the 4x100m relay. This feat would not be repeated until another American, Carl Lewis, did it in the 2004 Games in Los Angeles, long after Hitler had been swept from the world stage in due ignominy.

Hitler, in the stands on the first day of the Owens events, came down to congratulate German event winners but declined to congratulate any others, including Owens. Owens responded with the same kind of grace American athletes have demonstrated at the 2008 games: "I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany."

Even at home, two Democratic Party presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, neither invited Owens to the White House nor bestowed on him any honors in the wake of his accomplishment. Owens would have to wait for his proper national recognition until the election of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who heralded Owens as an "ambassador of sports."

Yet while Stalin was enslaving and slaughtering his own countrymen and Hitler was on the verge of enslaving all of Europe, America had shed its own sons' blood to abolish domestic slavery, and despite remaining cultural prejudice at home the descendants of her former slaves had now risen to international acclaim. Nine years after the Owens games the United States would be the main power responsible for defeating Hitler, and for holding Stalin and his ideological heirs in check for another half century until they could be decisely defeated without firing a shot in direct warfare, under the steadfast American leadership of a man for whom, when he died a mere four years ago, Lady Margaret Thatcher suggested that "all the trumpets sounded on the other side," Ronald Reagan.

There is a litany of American Olympic stories as long as the litany of the general international triumphs of the United States. The unlikely conquest by the U.S. national hockey team of the heavily favored Soviet team in 1980 at Lake Placid matches the unlikely conquest of the United States of the technology, logistics, national determination, and financial investment required to put a starred and striped flag - the only such flag to this day - on the moon, or a scientific lander - the only such lander - on the distant planet of Mars, with plans for a manned mission to Mars to come in the near future.

There is the 1972 collection of seven gold medals - an Olympic record until another American surpassed him in 2008 - by swimmer Mark Spitz, or the repeated domination of both springboard and tower diving events by Greg Louganis between 1980 and 1988, to match the American invention of the telephone, the electric light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the transistor, the Internet, satellite navigation, and many more core technologies that define what it means to live anywhere on earth in the 21st century.

Louganis was of Samoan and Swedish descent and was raised by Greek-American adoptive parents in California. Like Albert Einstein and the other German scientists who fled Hitler's Germany following World War II to establish nuclear technology in the United States, Louganis' adoptive ancestors came to America to be free and to give their descendants the opportunity to prosper.

From every corner of the world during the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, they came to America. They replayed, wittingly or not, the coming of the Mayflower and the desire of its passengers to build a nation that was a lighthouse. Even beyond the immigration of Louganis' adoptive family, the symptoms of this mass migration to the land of the free are everywhere to be seen in every Olympic Games, and 2008 is no exception.

The personal coach of lead American women's gymnast Shawn Johnson is Liang Chow, who once competed on the Chinese national gymnastics team then came to America in 1990 to study and coach at the University of Iowa. Johnson is from west Des Moines. The father of American men's gymnast Alexander Artemev is Vladimir Artemev, the former Soviet all-around world gymnastics champion in 1984 before he came to America in 1994 when Alexander was 9. Both became American citizens in 2002.

One searches the Russian and Chinese Olympic teams in vain for any sign of an American who migrated to those countries to achieve athletic greatness or any other kind of greatness not offered in better timber in his native land.

The greatest athletes competing for other nations at the 2008 games, if they have not migrated permanently to the United States, have come to the U.S. to train, compete, and to get an education. Premier Chinese basketball player Yao Ming plays professionally in the American National Basketball Association (NBA), as do Spain's Pao Gasol, Germany's Dirk Nowitzki, Argentina's Manu Ginobili, and every other international basketball great.

The University of Auburn swimming program alone boasts members from Australia, Brazil, Estonia, Denmark, France, Croatia, and Trinidad and Tobago. Arizona State University boasts athletes from Brazil, Canada, Finland, Italy, Great Britain, Hungary, Israel, Kuwait, and Sweden. At the University of Alabama, swimmers from Ecuador share the pool with ones from Greece, Kazakhstan, Romania, Hungary, and South Africa. In swimming as in so many other international sports, the road to Olympic glory for one's home country usually passes through an American league or university.

They not only came to America to live free, but they came to bring glory back to the land of their ethnic heritage. They came, they worked, they learned, they trained, they sent money home, and with their help America not only mounted athletic conquests to match her economic, social, political, and military conquests - military not in aggression against free, independent states like Putin in Georgia, but military in defense of free, independent states, like Eisenhower in Normandy or Reagan in Nicaragua or Bush in Iraq - and in the process America became a blessing to the nations.

Her 23-year-olds become Olympic legends by winning more gold medals than any other Olympian in history. Her 41-year-old mothers become Olympic legends by winning medals two years after giving birth at the age of 39. Games of size and speed such as basketball are not simply won but dominated by the United States, and her basketball players are celebrated around the world as icons of athletic genius.

Her athletes, in turn, educate the world on why it is at least as cool to love the United States as it is for anyone else to love his or her country, despite widespread international media and political prejudice to the contrary, a prejudice born of too great a sympathy for Russian and Chinese visions of political wisdom. Kobe Bryant, American basketball great, in an interview with NBC's Chris Collinsworth, said a few days ago that when he first received his Team USA basketball jersey he laid it on the bed and "just stared at it." This exchange followed between Collinsworth and Bryant:

    Collinsworth: "Where does the patriotism come from inside of you? Historically, what is it?"

    Bryant: "Well, you know it's just our country, it's... we believe is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities, and it's just a sense of pride that you have; that you say 'You know what? Our country is the best!'"

    Collinsworth: "Is that a 'cool' thing to say, in this day and age? That you love your country, and that you're fighting for the red, white and blue? It seems sort of like a day gone by."

    Kobe: "No, it's a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor."

Bryant may not understand exactly where American greatness comes from, or how the exceptional opportunities he rightly appreciates first developed, but like so many normal, everyday Americans from Bryant's Los Angeles to Shawn Johnson's Des Moines to Michael Phelps' Baltimore, he senses at a deep level that the greatness is real and the greatness is unequaled by another nation.

Americans do not compete at the highest levels in every world sport, to be sure, but the 2008 games have shown once again that they compete at the highest levels on a wider and deeper athletic scale, and across a wider range of ethnicities and people groups producing athletes who call themselves Americans, than any other political entity recognized by the world, past or present.

And American athletes accomplish their feats with the same kind of grace, charity, and universal concern for all nations with which President George W. Bush carries and expresses himself, notwithstanding foolish caricatures everywhere to the contrary.

It is as difficult to pinpoint the source of this grace and charity in American athletes as it is for Kobe Bryant to pinpoint the source of his patriotism, but the question leads beyond the immediate history of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries in which the United States has stood at the center of the international epic, back to...

... Plymouth Rock and into the Middle Ages; to the fall of Rome; to the birth and death of Jesus Christ; to the ancient mystery of the Jewish people group that produced both Him and His chief disciple, the Apostle Paul, who compared his efforts to be like Christ to the efforts of an Olympic athlete preparing for his games; and further back still...

...to the vicious world of the ancient Near East out of which the Jews were first called - a world where Everyman was nothing and the king was Everyman, a world of nothing if not one of universal slavery before the Jewish presence illuminated it with the message, the commandments, and the very presence of Yahweh.

The question of grace and charity takes us to these places because the question of grace and charity is, as America has shown the world better than any other nation in the modern era, the real center of history. In the end the Olympic games are only games. They will pass, the glory will fade, the medals will lose their luster, and the records will be broken.

But the presence of grace and charity on the international scene beneath, behind, and in the midst of an unrelenting drive toward victory - the reality of virtue and humility in the face of evil and slight, of national health, endurance, determination, and stability in the face of the rise and fall of international despots, of the promise such national strength represents of a Kingdom yet to be revealed in which grace and charity will find their complete fulfillment and manifestation among every tribe, tongue, and nation - this is the stuff of lasting legends, the story of Earth, and the meaning of the cosmos: that grace and charity, and the God who is their ultimate source, and the peoples who worship that God, become and remain triumphant, though charlatans and derelicts give battle to the end.

Why did the Dems go Euro?

The elitists who dominate the Democratic Party have embraced the New Europe and its world view. The fawning reception of Barack Obama in Europe illustrated this. They see him as the anti-Bush, their best bet ever to lash “rambunctious” America to the collectivist chariot of Europe’s “Brave New World”. [So writes Bill Moloney in his overview of liberalism's trans-Atlantic convergence and its significance for Election 2008. Here's the piece in full. - Editor]

The Europeanization of the Democratic Party

In the 19th century Americans took very seriously Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances” which might interfere with the country’s unfolding “Manifest Destiny” of dynamic growth and expansion. A corollary to this belief was that the “Great American Democracy” was a unique-perhaps even divinely inspired-form of political organization vastly superior to the Old World’s tired regimes of aristocratic privilege and downtrodden masses.

In the 20th century America entered upon the world stage powerfully and decisively coming to the aid of embattled European democracies and leading them to victory in two World Wars and the Cold War. Launching these extraordinary interventions were three memorable Democratic presidents- Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Though American actions in the two centuries were starkly different- isolationism in the 19th, and intervention in the 20th-one compelling theme was constant: American Exceptionalism- a general notion that foreigners were a source of problems and Americans were a source of solutions. This attitude was often naïve, and jingoistic, but it provided a sturdy foundation for American patriotism through most of our history.

This enduring national consensus, however, collapsed during the “perfect storm” of the 1960s when a toxic brew of social, military and political convulsions tore gaping holes in the fabric of our national life-self-inflicted wounds that remain unhealed to this day.

Out of this turmoil there emerged a powerful body of left wing opinion and activism that turned the old national consensus upside down. Rejecting Henry Clay’s “my country-right or wrong”, the left substituted “my country-always wrong”. More extreme elements declared their country to be the most oppressive society in history- racist at home and imperialist abroad-while discovering sublime virtues in genocidal tyrants from Mao Tse-Tung to Pol Pot.

While this raging ideological virus infected in varying degree a wide range of American institutions-e.g. media, academia- its principal victim was the national Democratic party.

In less than a decade the party that boldly sponsored the Berlin airlift, the Marshall Plan, and the NATO alliance went from the confident activism of the hawkish John Kennedy-“pay any price, bear any burden to assure the success of liberty”- to the “Blame America First” defeatism of George McGovern-who aptly themed his 1972 acceptance speech as “Come Home, America”.

Betraying allies in Viet Nam, ignoring genocide in Cambodia, accepting communist aggression from Angola to Afghanistan, and bowing to humiliation in Iran, America’s defense of liberty abroad was reduced to Carter’s pathetic gesture of boycotting the Moscow Olympics.

The sorry Democratic mismanagement of both economic and foreign policy led to a series of landslide Republican Presidential victories and finally a decade of GOP Congressional dominance. Yet, amazingly none of these severe reality checks halted the Democrats steady leftward drift.

To understand this hostile take-over of the Democratic Party it must be seen in the context of what happened to all “parties of the left” in Europe in the second half of the 20th century. Traumatized by the shocks and dislocations of World Wars and Cold War the entire European political spectrum moved decisively leftward. While the Socialist parties led this progression, the parties of the Center and Right- shaken by their own crises of confidence- succumbed as well. European Capitalism and Nationalism was decisively weakened and the door opened to a continent-wide shift to collectivism and the trans-nationalism represented by the United Nations, and the European Union.

Today the elitists who dominate the Democratic Party have embraced the “New Europe” and its world view. On virtually every issue- Iraq, taxes, abortion, global warming, energy, hostility to religion, suspicion of Israel, regulation, U.N. worship etc. etc.-difference are only of degree not kind.

The fawning reception of Barack Obama in Europe illustrated this perverse harmony. Clearly Obama’s view of the future fits with Europe’s. They see him as the anti-Bush, their best bet ever to lash “rambunctious” America to the collectivist chariot of Europe’s “Brave New World”.

While heir to Western Civilization, America has always stood apart in the degree of its faith, patriotism, individualism, opportunity, and vitality. Most basically the Presidential election will decide whether this American Exceptionalism will endure or not. The Democratic Party has already given its answer. In November, ordinary Americans will give theirs.

Jews slant media, candidate claims

Rima Barakat Sinclair of Denver, born in Jordan, now a US citizen and a Republican candidate for HD6, told a Jordanian newspaper that "wealthy Jewish supporters of Zionism like Robert Maxwell and Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch" are responsible for "the reality of a Western media hostile to Arab and Islamic issues." How exceedingly odd. You'd think Sinclair would be too busy contacting voters here in town to opine on global Zionist influence for the home folks in Amman. What does this inflammatory allegation have to do with her aspiration to be a state legislator in Colorado? What is her evidence for it? And where does it fit in with her claim to be a Republican, a free enterpriser, and a voice of tolerance?

Sinclair's interview with the Jordanian paper, Al Arab Al-Yawm, appears in Arabic here. An English translation, made locally in Denver, is posted here.

The latter link is to the blog of Joshua Sharf, who's running against Sinclair in the GOP primary next Tuesday, Aug. 12. Below is the Sinclair translation in context, from Sharf's website. The boldface emphasis is mine.

====================================================

EXCERPT FROM JSHARF.COM... VIEW FROM A HEIGHT BLOG

More from Rima's big adventure, the email chat session with the Jordanian newspaper.

We are aware that the Arab media influence on Western society is limited, and we also know that the Arab issues are not fairly covered in the western media. There are many Arab American organizations that provide activities aimed at the definition of truth and justice the Palestinian cause.

The source of activities in non-Arab countries, which were founded some 20 years ago, has remained limited within the point of view and vision of the founding members of those organizations. Most have focused their efforts in Washington DC, leaving their influence on public opinion and American media deflated.

There are several factors affecting the ability of Arabs to launch publicity campaigns to explain the issue and win the American people to their side. One of them was the lack of interest by Arab tycoons or companies in producing films or television program available for worldwide sale. This is the reverse of the actions taken by a number of wealthy Jewish supporters of Zionism like Robert Maxwell and Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch. So media campaigns advocating for Arabs or Muslims in America are limited to the efforts of individuals or small enterprises that suffer most from financial difficulties and limited distribution.

The reality of a Western media hostile to Arab and Islamic issues will not change as long as Arabs are only waiting for the West to see the "right," one day, without developing an integrated effort to deliver their message. A dialogue of religions is needed, and part of the Divine message is that the powerful should have compassion for the weak.

Ideally, morality starts with tolerance of others and self-understanding. If people applied this principle in their own lives, it would solve many of their problems. What applies to individuals applies to relations between nations. But reality dictates that the strong decide what is "right." It is the duty of the victim to remind the strong that he didn't consider the effects of his unjust abuse. Therefore, it remains important that one talk with a strong knowledge of his thinking and point of view. This does not mean forgetting or abandoning the right.

The Saudi Madrid initiative has received wide and positive media coverage, especially by the one rabbi invited to the conference. And since Saudi Arabia began and will continue this initiative, it is preferable to encourage religious scholars and Islamic institutions to study and support such initiatives, instead of having the positive reaction only or participating in conferences organized to discuss Islam by non-Muslims. [End of Rima Sinclair comments to Jordanian paper]

Foreign trip was Obama's Tom Dewey moment

A friend from my school days in Zurich, still living in Switzerland, emailed me about Barack Obama’s recent trip to Europe. He summed up perfectly the prevailing reaction from Europeans about the Democrat nominee for president: “Oh, how wonderful it is [sic] to have a man of the world as America’s president!”

Leaving aside the now-familiar (if in this case unintended) presumptuousness that Obama supporters routinely exhibit, this simple statement validates how desperate the Europeans are for an “anti-Bush” – someone erudite, cultured, elegant in manner, and above all else, eager to embrace diplomacy in all its multilateral glory. Obama’s Berlin speech, while short of an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment, was tailor made for a Europe that seeks an America in its own image – idealistic, nuanced and profoundly non-confrontational.

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, however, the European trip, highlighted by his speech to 200,000 adoring Berliners in Germany, seems to have fallen flat here in America. In a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted just after the completion of the trip, Obama’s lead among likely voters evaporated in a 9 point swing, with McCain surging to a 4% lead over Obama -- reversing a pre-trip deficit of 5%.

Significantly, in separate questions, the poll shows that support for the view that he can handle the job of commander-in-chief, that he will do a good job on fighting terrorism and that he is capable of handling the war in Iraq all dropped as well. By these measures, Obama’s trip through the Middle East and Europe, which was designed to show that he was up to the job of dealing with foreign policy issues, must be seen as something of a failure. Many analysts, including The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, believe that Obama’s speech in Germany and his overall trip abroad may prove to be a negative tipping point in the election – something akin to a “Dukakis in the tank” moment.

Euro Skepticism

There are several reasons why Obama’s trip, so celebrated in Europe, backfired here in America. Many Americans remain skeptical of European values, motivations and judgment -- particularly on issues related to security and the war on terror. As one American recently said to me, “I’ll always love Paris and London as a place to visit; but if the Euros are for something, I generally think I should be against it.” The roots of this go deeper than just the lingering resentment many Americans still feel over French, German and Spanish opposition to the Iraq War. Though France’s President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel have worked to repair some of damage done by their predecessors, many Americans nonetheless feel that Europe can’t be counted on when needed.

The issue of Iran is a case in point: in a recent poll conducted by the BBC, over 60% of Americans favor strong economic sanctions or military action against Iran’s nuclear program, compared to only 34% in the U.K. and 37% in Germany. Europeans are far more likely to have faith in multilateral institutions and negotiations than do most Americans – a particularly important distinction given Obama’s stated willingness to meet with Iranian president Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

In addition, other polling seems to reinforce the notion that Americans, though clearly invested in a strong Atlantic Alliance, understand that there remain divisions with Europe. A recent poll by GlobeScan sponsored by the British Council found that “on average Americans characterize their views of Europeans as cooler than a friend but warmer than a casual acquaintance”.

Americans have generally lukewarm views of France (48% positive, 31% negative, 15% neutral), Spain (47% positive, 16% negative, 26% neutral) and Poland (41% positive, 15% negative, 30% neutral). Views of Turkey lean slightly negative (29% positive, 35% negative, 23% neutral). Only opinion of the UK (72% positive) and Germany (62%) were above 50%. Not exactly a love fest.

The Audacity of Hubris

This Euro-skepticism may provide some context to the Obama trip, but it is not in itself dispositive. The Obama campaign designed the trip as something of a pre-election “victory tour”, with all the elements of a state visit. The candidate spent time with heads-of-state, conducted presidential-style news conferences and soaked up the adulation of throngs of Europeans who came to catch a glimpse of him. It was covered by a fawning global media that literally gushed with his every appearance. In a sign of just how (self) important Obama saw his trip to Berlin, the campaign originally considered giving the speech from the Brandenburg Gate – the site two historic presidential speeches: JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” in 1963 and Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech of 1987. Both of these speeches were given by actual sitting presidents who had proven their bona fides in the Cold War, not by a presidential candidate who hasn’t even become the official nominee of his party. Apparently, only after German Chancellor Merkel called the request “inappropriate” did the Obama campaign relent, finding another location for the speech.

Obama’s desire to speak at the Brandenburg Gate smacks of hubris, but it paled in comparison to his actions while in Berlin. His now infamous decision to cancel his visit with the wounded troops at the Ramstein and Landstuhl Medical Centers because he couldn’t turn it into a campaign event, was a PR disaster of the first order – particularly since he decided to work out at the gym at the Ritz Carlton instead. For a candidate that has stumbled badly among Clinton supporters in the heartland, and who famously made the “cling to religion and guns” remark in reference to them, Obama still doesn’t seem to understand that Americans dislike elitism. Not visiting U.S. troops wounded in battle because he couldn’t get any campaign mileage from it says to the American people that he doesn’t appreciate the sacrifices of ordinary Americans in uniform, and that consequently, he may not be fit to be commander-in-chief.

Another Dewey?

Finally, Obama’s European and Middle East tour had an air of presumptuousness about it. He flew in with his entourage as if he had already won the election, meeting with General Petraeus in Iraq and making it clear that, though the general opposed a withdrawal timetable, he as the future commander-in-chief knew best. The media coverage, which a majority of Americans now feel has been unfairly biased in Obama’s favor, was nothing short of fawning. His trip was a state visit in everything but name, even providing daily schedules that looked like carbon-copies of the schedules provided when George Bush travels abroad.

It is obviously news to the Democrats -- who are already redecorating the Oval Office -- but there is still an election to win in November. Americans are famous for rooting for the underdog – a position that John McCain has already won from in the Republican primaries earlier this year. The more the campaign, aided by the media, acts as if Obama’s victory is inevitable, the more they run the risk of appearing arrogant in the eyes of many voters. Many of the voters that Obama must win to achieve victory in this election still need to be wooed, convinced that Obama is worthy of their vote. They don’t want to be talked down to, taken for granted or dismissed. These voters aren't going to vote for him simply because he's black, or because he talks about "hope". In the end it will come down to real issues -- like national security, energy policy, the economy, taxes -- and Obama must have real answers. “Change" just won't cut it.

It might be wise for the Obama campaign to remember the story of Tom Dewey. Running in the 1948 election against an unpopular incumbent president (Harry Truman), Dewey ran well ahead the entire election. After 16 years of Democrat Party rule, it was widely seen to be a Republican year – it was time for change. The post-war economy was stagnant, the Soviet Union was ascendant, and the country was struggling with rebuilding Europe and Japan. Truman was seen to be competent but dull. Dewey, on the other hand, was the dashing Governor of New York, well-spoken, well-educated. A thoroughly modern man. The media was so convinced of a Dewey victory, that the Chicago Tribune went to press with that famous headline, “Dewey Beats Truman”, before all the votes were counted.

You already know the rest of the story.

Andrews does a Tocqueville

When we French need insights into American society, we can profitably peruse French historian Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 classic, Democracy in America. If Coloradans, and all Americans for that matter, need to find out more about moral, economic, and sociological trends in Europe today before they make a choice in November’s American presidential and congressional elections, they can confidently expect guidance from former Colorado Senate President John Andrews’ discerning comments on the subject following his recent trip there. In his latest Denver Post column, John points out at least nine European idiosyncrasies which accurately encapsulate the Old Continent’s chronic deficiencies:

- Weariness - Restricted outlook - Fewer children - Secularism - Sluggish economies - Heavy taxes - Burdensome bureaucracies - Weak defenses - Diminished freedom and responsibility

These perversions have one thing in common: The kind of big-government welfarism that Barack Obama is ominously advocating for America as the Democrat Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

America would ultimately be sinning against Providence if it were to follow Old Europe’s lead down the primrose path to the kind of despotism Tocqueville so perceptively warned democratic nations against a century and a half ago. As Mr. Andrews so lyrically and ringingly puts it in his column, “ A torn and tired world needs the sword of [American] vigilance and the flame of [American] idealism.”

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European and US politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.