-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, frm TML)

I’m ticked off that we have to remember Presidents Washington & Lincoln in the same breath as Carter, Obama, Buchanan & Polk.  Let’s never forget that we are SUPPOSED to mark today as Washington’s Birthday.  And let’s learn something while we are at it, eh? (via UnionLeader.com)

Today is not Presidents’ Day. The holiday’s official title is George Washington’s Birthday. It is a day for celebrating the Father of our Country, whose greatness is often forgotten.

Few Americans know that George Washington never received more than elementary-level schooling. But he was a whiz at math, and his sharp mind and appetite for adventure led him to surveying, then to the Army.

Incredibly, in his first military adventure, the totally untrained soldier led an attack on a French force near the Ohio River, killing a French ambassador. Thus began the French and Indian War. Washington was captured and signed a statement, written in French, admitting to what were basically war crimes. In his next battle, Washington advised Gen. Edward Braddock to avoid traditional battle lines in an open field. Braddock ignored him, and the Indians slaughtered the British, killing Braddock. London blamed the colonials, including Washington.

Today, a young soldier’s career probably would be over — if he ever got into the Army with such little education to begin with. Washington soldiered on, eventually leading a small force of mostly militiamen to victory over the greatest military power the world had ever seen.

In 1788, a popular song in the new United States of America was “Great Washington shall rule the land.” But Washington wanted nothing of it. He was nearly broke and needed to restore his farm to profitability. But without campaigning for the job, he was unanimously elected President. He wrote of the results: “My movements to the chair of government will be accompanied by feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution … .”

On his ride to New York City, then the capital, he was serenaded by citizens singing, “Welcome, mighty chief!” Had he sought them, dictatorial powers were his for the taking. But on his inauguration, he wore a plain brown suit fitting of an average American, the first step in his plan to establish that Presidents were citizen executives, nothing more.

“As the first of everything in our situation will serve to establish a precedent, it is devoutly wished on my part, that these precedents may be fixed on true principles,” he wrote to James Madison. Following his principles, he spent the next eight years retiring the national debt, avoiding foreign entanglements and trying to ensure the stability of the young national government.

When he retired, George Washington was reviled by a large portion of the citizens who owed him their freedom. To avoid war, he had accepted a humiliating treaty with Britain. The newly formed opposition press brutally attacked and mocked him. But Washington never responded. He let the press and the people deride him as he rode home to Mount Vernon, where he died two years later.

Today, George Washington is the dour old man on the dollar bill. In his time, he was a colossus, the general who risked everything to defeat an empire, only to reject his own crown and retire to his farm after ensuring that no one would have the power he refused to take for himself. We owe him everything. Let us remember that, if not every day, at least on this one.

The American liberal wants us to forget about Washington.  He stood for individual freedom and liberty and the power of the people to overthrow tyranny.  They want to marginalize him and give him the “Alinsky Treatment.”

Not on my watch.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

If The Great American Philosopher were here, watching the State of Our Union I do believe he would reflect upon words he wrote hundreds of years ago:

1775 June 26-July 6. “Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.” (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, B.1.215)

1787 Nov. 13. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356)

I recalled the ‘tree of liberty’ quote when I wrote the James O’Keefe piece yesterday.  While luckily no blood was shed, I would submit that O’Keefe did spare some of his individual liberty in the cause of the greater good:  protecting the rest of ours.

If only all of us were as brave to stand up to the tyrannical Federal Government that has taken so much of our freedoms away for the past several decades.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m writing this on my iPhone with a new WordPress app. If it works, I’ll be blogging more!!

Yesterday, Human Events declared Dick Cheney to be the “Conservative of the Year.” (read the whole thing!)

In Washingtonian “inside the Beltway” terms, the most amazing aspect of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s new clout is that he is achieving it the old-fashioned way: talking about public policy. He is not running for President or any other office. He has not formed a PAC or a D.C. lobbying firm. He is not dishing on former colleagues, not spreading gossip, not settling scores. He is, instead, writing a memoir about his extensive career in public service, and giving occasional speeches and interviews, mostly on national and homeland security policy, long his central focus.

How is it, therefore, that someone who has no political ambitions can cause so much angst at the White House and in the mainstream news media? The irrefutable answer is that what Cheney is saying, primarily on foreign policy, defense and anti-terrorism, makes sense to more and more American citizens growing increasingly worried by the Obama Administration’s insouciance when U.S. national interests are threatened, both at home and abroad.

I’ll go one further. Cheney is without doubt The Conservative of The Decade and perhaps the most important and influential true American Conservative since Ronald Reagan.

Cheney proves again and again that he has core values and principles that are TRULY conservative and mirror the Founding Principles of this nation.

His devotion to individual American freedom and liberty is so pure that he becomes a progressive on the issue of gay marriage.

History will judge Cheney well. He helped make decisions that needed to be made to save the Republic. And I am confident that by 2012, a majority of Americans will only wish that Dick Cheney was our President or Vice President.

- Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  The former Vice President is not only, as Bruce noted above, devoted to his country, but also to his family, including his lesbian daughter.  He has treated Mary as we wish all parents to treat their gay children, loving her for who she is, welcoming Heather, her partner, into the family as he has her elder sister’s husband, including that same-sex couple in official events, including three inaugurations.

It is unfortunate that more gay Americans, including the heads of various gay organizations, don’t give this good man his due.  They may not share his politics, but they should at least appreciate his example.

I did not hear the president’s speech yesterday in Oslo when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, so cannot comment on his delivery.

When I started reading snippets on conservative blogs, most singing the speech’s praises (with slight quibbles for some of the language), I thought I was reading something from a speech by John McCain or Joe Lieberman.  So, I printed it out to read at my leisure.

Now that I have read it, I agree that it is very strong speech, if a bit overlong.  My biggest quibble was that he didn’t acknowledge those great warriors throughout history who have secured the peace, whether it be generals like George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant or leaders like Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.  When the president mentioned the Gipper, he didn’t mention his arms buildup which put the U.S. in a position to promote peace through strength, but cited instead his “efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika“.

That said, the Gipper would have appreciated the better part of this address.

I absolutely loved his beginning when he acknowledged the “considerable controversy” of his selection.  He called “the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics . . . far more deserving of this honor than” he.

Then, he was wise to describe the war in Afghanistan as “a conflict that America did not seek”.   A great way to introduce the notion of a just war.  Then, in perhaps my favorite passage in the speech (because it relates to some of my dissertation research):

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Well said, very, very well said.  Later, after expressing great admiration for Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., two advocates of non-violence, he reminds us that their strategy cannot always work:

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. (more…)

It is a fitting tribute on the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to rightly note the man who challenged the evils of Communism, rallied his nation behind him and defeated the oppressive regimes.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has history right as she told our US Congress last week. America won the Cold War through leadership, not waffling:

I think of John F. Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961, after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of Berlin by saying, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This appeal shall remain forever in my heart.

I thank George Herbert Walker Bush for the trust he placed in Germany and then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl, offering something of immeasurable value to us Germans already in May 1989: partnership in leadership. What a generous offer 40 years after the end of the Second World War.

God Bless Ronald Reagan. No doubt, the greatest President I will see in my lifetime. Today is one of those days when I remember what it is to be an American and the awesome responsibility we have as being freedom’s last beacon of hope.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

While Peggy Noonan is normally Dan’s territory, I hope he will indulge me on this one.  Reason being is that I’m now a self-created student of the “American Generations” after reading “The Fourth Turning“.

Noonan’s column today sums up exactly why, as a Gen X’er, I hold the Baby Boomers in such disdain and long for the day that they have exited our political structure.  Noonan also echoes a lot of what Strauss and Howe said about the Boomers in “The Fourth Turning”.

Her column title sums it up nicely: We’re Governed by Callous Children.

And her last paragraph fits the Boomer Class like a glove:

We are governed at all levels by America’s luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they’re not optimists—they’re unimaginative. They don’t have faith, they’ve just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don’t mind it when people become disheartened. They don’t even notice.

As Strauss and Howe noted in 1997, it is now our time.  The practical Gen Xers & The Millenials have to rescue America from the Baby Boomers who lived their entire adult lives wishing for the ideals of America to end; and are now in the middle of fulfilling those goals.

It is time to take America back from these callous children.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  Bruce, of course, I’ll indulge you on this one.

I agree that the column you cite was particularly insightful.  And do hope you’ll indulge me by according me the privilege of writing a followup.

So clearly I intended to write this posting a LONGGGG time ago. I’ve been saving it because both of these books are two of the best I’ve read in a long time. I strongly suggest them as immediate reading. (And in case the FTC is monitoring blogs now, I did not receive any compensation to make these recommendations!)

The first is a work of fiction (I hope) and the second is non-fiction/history.  Both are related to a potential catastrophe facing the United States of America and how its citizens do (or might) respond.

“One Second After” by William R. Forstchen tells the tale of a North Carolina mountain town that struggles to survive after a massive EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack on the USA.  The science behind the fiction is as fascinating and disturbing as the storyline.  In brief, if you explode a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere (as opposed to at ground level), the EMP will fry every type of electronic/transistor in every piece of modern machinery. I don’t want to give away much of the plot — but involves a complete breakdown of civilized society because we are so wed to modern electronics to get through each day.

How serious is the EMP threat you might ask? Chillingly real.  There has been at least one Congressional hearing on the subject each of the past several years.  Here is a link to an account of the most recent (July 2009).

If you want a great “future is now” thriller that will keep you turning pages and crapping your pants wondering when this might happen for real — definitely buy “One Second After“.

My second recommendation is a relatively “old” book (1997) that just came to my attention recently.  It is called “The Fourth Turning” by William Strauss and Neil Howe.   Here’s the Amazon.com review which sums it up nicely:

The Fourth Turning continues the project of mapping out the place of generations in history, a project begun in the authors’ earlier books Generations and 13th Gen. If millennial fever takes hold, The Fourth Turning may be only the first of an impending wave of pseudo-scholarly tracts prognosticating future (but imminent!) doom as we collectively close the books on this millennium. Those expecting a serious or dry tome might be put off by the authors’ taste for bulleted text and catchy phrasings, but can you blame these guys for wanting to make impending peril as exciting as possible? After all, they think we are headed toward “events on par with the Revolution, the Civil War, or World War II” in the next 20 years. Mixing solid understanding of present generational divisions, with some fairly broad generalizations, Strauss and Howe promise to move from history to prophecy.

Their other two books are now on my list as I’ve become fascinated with the different dynamics of generations, especially as it impacts American history and its future.  Many of their predictions from1997 are today’s headlines, so perhaps it is more impactful to read it now than when it was first published.

So there you go.  Two long overdue book recommendations from me — he who rarely has time to read a magazine!!  I read both of these quickly earlier this summer.  They are both engaging and terrifying at the same time.

My reading habits will hopefully improve since PatriotPartner got me an Amazon Kindle for my 41st birthday last week.  Yay!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sometimes when you’re reading a speech, you miss something which strikes you only when you see it in isolation.   And so it was when, in these posts, I caught this line from the President’s speech Wednesday to the United Nations:

For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.

Instead of referencing this nation’s achievements in the 232 1/2 years prior to his inauguration, Mr. Obama tells us what he has done since he took office.

He may talk about “responsibly ending a war” in Iraq, but he doesn’t mention the word, victory, nor the tyrant we overthrew, a tyrant who, by the way, had repeatedly snubbed his nose at the United Nations, you know, the institution he was addressing.

He does not mention how we helped liberate a continent from fascist tyranny.  And the only time he mentions the President who led us to that great victory (a word absent from his discourse) was to reference his “vision for this institution” (i.e., the United Nations).

Nor did mention how Presidents of both parties stood strong against communism and for freedom, waging and subsequently winning the Cold War, bringing down the Iron Curtain and bringing freedom and economic growth to the long-suffering peoples of central and eastern Europe.  Well, he did reference the Cold War, just once, reminding us that it was “long-gone.”  Does he even appreciate how American policies made that so? (more…)

Today, September 17, 2009 is Constitution Day, marking the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution in Philadelphia.  Given the concerns expressed by the delegates from the various states assembled in the summer of 1787, that they could agree on a framework for a federal government is truly remarkable.

About this remarkable accomplishment, the distinguished historian Edmund S. Morgan wrote in “Postscript: Philadelphia 1787“*

What happened in Philadelphia that summer was the culminating achievement of the Enlightenment in America, if not the world.  Fifty-five men agreed on a way of government that has been more successful in almost every way than any other in a thousand years and more.  Yes, the members of the Constitutional Convention all had their special interests to protect, among them the interests of slaveholders, not among them the interests of slaves.  But they listened to each other.  They reasoned together.  And what they did was not unreasonable.  It worked.  It still works.

In his essay, Morgan shows how remarkable this accomplishment was not by the traditional means.  He doesn’t commend James Madison for his design, doesn’t praise George Washington for his skill in presiding over the proceedings.  He doesn’t detail how they delegates worked out the Great Compromise, creating a bicameral legislature which different means of selection for the representatives in each, to address the concerns of the small and big states .  Nor does he elucidate the advantages of the separation of powers.

Instead, he looks to the popular mood that summer in the City of Philadelphia to show just how great were the odds against which the Framers labored.  He details the story of woman accused of being a witch to suggest that certain superstitions ran deep in post-Revolutionary America.

While laws against witchcraft had been repealed in 1736, “belief in witchcraft,” Morgan wrote, “could not be repealed.  Fear of witchcraft continued, and so did popular methods of detecting and dealing with witches.”

Indeed, the very day James Madison arrived in Philadelphia, a woman named Korbmacher was attacked for being a witch; she “applied to the authorities for protection.”  Two months later, on July 10 to be precise, while “America’s great men sat in solemn conclave, working out the compromise that saved the union,” an “ignorant and inhuman mob” kidnapped this poor woman and carried her through the streets where she “was hooted and pelted as she passed along.”  She died eight days later.

The juxtaposition of her torment and the drafting of the Constitution leads Morgan to conclude:

. . . the episode did not seem as bizarre to people of the time as it does to us.  The year 1787 was less than a century from 1692 [year of Salem witch trials].  It is worth reminding ourselves that Benjamin Franklin once spoke with Cotton Mather.  He and the other fifty-four men who labored n the State House that summer may have been working against greater odds that we have realized.

Emphasis added.  Theirs really was a remarkable accomplishment.  The framework of government they established still functions.  As we celebrate the Constitution today, let us remember those great men, the odds they faced and the obstacles they overcame.  Let us salute in particular James Madison who designed the document and George who presided over the deliberations, keeping order amidst contentious parties.

Would that we had their like today.

* (more…)

Mark Steyn at NRO hits the health care nail squarely on the head in a piece published yesterday. What I’ve been screaming since the debate began (and goes along great with my New Independence Movement concept) he has a much better way of saying calmly and to great effect: That we concede the noble high-ground if we allow the debate to be about anything other than liberty and responsibility. I remember from history class that this Nation fought a war for that once. From Steyn:

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

Too much in this great piece for me to cut-and-paste the good stuff. You MUST read the whole thing.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Here’s a nifty graphic originally created by the Washington Post. (h/t – Heritage Foundation)

And by “nifty”, I mean completely scary and mind-boggling!

Obama Lied, the American Way of Life Died!

Paraphrasing Eva Peron — “We are ALL Government Workers Now”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

One of the original American patriots, Patrick Henry, delivered one of the greatest speeches in our nation’s history — 234 years ago today.  (h/t – Casey Wright via Twitter)

I can’t believe I have never posted this speech at GayPatriot before.  Perhaps the time wasn’t right.  Until now.

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

“Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

“There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Where are today’s Patrick Henrys?  Or Thomas Jeffersons?  Or Abraham Lincolns?

Instead, we have and Oprah-fied President in the White House.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

(H/t Glenn.)

One of the reasons Michael Barone has long been one of my favorite columnists is his long study of American history and deep understanding of our political and social traditions.  In his blog post, Obama’s Threat to Charities and Universities: His Budget and Taxes, he quotes Tocqueville to show how far back goes the American tradition of voluntarism.

Barone fears that by reducing the value of the charitable deduction, Obama’s budget threatens volunary associations:

This is an attempt to channel money away from voluntary associations and direct it to the state. Some of that money, in turn, would be directed to public employee unions, and much if not most of that would be directed to the Democratic Party. It would be interesting to know what White House counselor and former President of Harvard University Lawrence Summers thinks of this.

It seems the president wants to centralize power in Washington and siphon some of the fruits of that control to various interest groups which support the Democratic Party. This is part and parcel of the liberal (in the current understanding of the term) vision of government as the solution to all too many of our problems.

That vision, however, is at odds with the American tradition. As Barone so wisely note, “One of the strengths of American society is that we do not rely solely on the government to address social problems.“

If it’s by Barone, it goes without saying: read the whole thing.

In just three hours, Barack Obama will take the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States. After he does so, he will deliver his first speech as the nation’s chief executive. That speech, even more than his mostly dignified conduct since the election, will set the tone for his Administration.

This time, his speaking style should serve him well. For the better part of his career in the national spotlight, his speeches have been short on specifics and long on rhetoric. He need not articulate any policy proposals in his address, but speak to the nation he will then lead and not just the partisans who helped elect him.

I am delighted it will be a relatively short speech, “about 15-20 minutes.” All he need do is acknowledge the greatness of this country, perhaps the uniqueness of our history, a nation built on an ideal rather than an ethnicity and even the significance of the moment. To be sure, he can and should offer a broad vision of where he intends to lead us. But, just a broad outline.

Today is not the day for specific policies. Today, is the day to celebrate the greatness of our country and the smoothness of the transition from the Administration of a man from one political party to that of a man from the opposing party. Such a transition first distinguished this nation two-hundred-and-eight years ago, when John Adams peacefully yielded the presidency to his then-political rival, his once and future friend, Thomas Jefferson.

To acknowledge the meaning of such a transition, the new President must pay tribute to his predecessor whose Administration, by all accounts, has helped ensure a smooth transition. That acknowledgment must be so ungrudging that the angriest voices of the left, dedicated for so long to demeaning Bush, will pitch a fit at its generosity.

In recent days, Obama has shown he can rise to the occasion, saying that Bush is “good man who loves his family and loves his country, [who] made the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.” Let us hope he does so again today.

When a leading liberal pundit and frequent Bush-critic writes that it’s “no longer a close call: President Bush was right about the surge,” we know that the success of the surge has passed from established fact to conventional wisdom.

Not just that, it says something that distinguishes the outgoing president, that, at least on matters of national security, George W. Bush is a man who learns from his mistakes.  And the two different stories from Iraq, apparent failure in 2005-06 but success in the two years after that helps us see our nation as the land of second chances.

As I read Ancient and European history, I note how many armies forfeited military advantages through strategic or tactical blunders.  Occasionally, they recover from their “self-created” setbacks, but more often than not, these mistakes lead to eventual defeat (and sometimes and even dismemberment of nations or empires).

Just over two years ago, it seemed we were losing in Iraq.  We had won the initial stages of the war, but had not effectively adjusted our strategy to meet the changing circumstances on the ground.  European moralists (or one of their imitators in American universities, think tanks and on liberal editorial boards and blogs) writing about the war (as many of them did) in 2006 (and into 2007 and even ‘08), would have defined our “adventure” in Iraq as a failure caused by an arrogant assumption of a bellicose Administration confident that military might alone were enough to secure success.

Americans, however, believe that we can turn a failure into an opportunity and even success.  We are, to be sure, not the only ones to believe this, but it is a defining aspect of our character.  We don’t see one failure as determinant of the final outcome.

Not believing that the deteriorating state of the war ensured defeat, George W. Bush, against great odds and much opposition, shifted course in Iraq, perhaps the boldest move of his Administration.  As a result, his new strategy, dubbed “the surge,” effected in Charles Krauthammer’s words “the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.“

There is a lesson in this.  And not just for political leaders.  It applies to our own lives as well.  It suggests that when we’ve made a mistake or suffered a setback, we too can turn things around just as President Bush and General Petraeus did in Iraq.

We’re Americans.  We believe in second chances.  One mistake does not necessarily doom us to failure.  To paraphrase George Eliot’s maxim “It’s never too late to be what you might have been,” it’s as if we believe it’s never too late to succeed where once you have failed.

Related:  We’ve won in Iraq, but will W get any credit? Will McCain?