Where have all the former auto execs gone

The results of the 2006 elections, according to most analysts and pundits, were that they indicated that Americans felt that their country was headed in the wrong direction and a change was needed. The results were obvious. The Democrats regained majorities in both houses of Congress, and even state governments encountered strong shifts to the left as Democratic candidates recognized the mood of the voters, promising them the changes that they were seeking. The results were not surprising, since it was the Republicans themselves who made their loss inevitable and relatively simple. Although it took the Republican Party a while to accomplish this, it eventually abandoned all of the principles and promises that brought it back to majority status in 1994. As recently as 2004, Americans still had sufficient confidence in the direction that the country was headed to grant Republicans yet another chance to retain the presidency and a small majority in Congress. Even by then, however, the perks of power were eating away at the vestiges of the very base of Republican values and promises. Unfortunately, there were many good Republicans swept from office in the 2006 elections and too many bad ones remained entrenched, thereby making a significant turnaround in 2008 appear extremely difficult to say the least.

Perhaps nothing better exemplifies the feelings of many Americans than the excerpts drawn from a new book authored by former automobile executive Lee Iacocca and co-authored by Catherine Whitney (published by Scribner) which is making the rounds of internet e-mail this week. The book is entitled Where Have All the Leaders Gone? I have not yet read the book and therefore I do not feel that I should comment on the book as a whole, although some of the short reviews that I have seen indicate that there are some good and valid points made by Mr. Iacocca. I will instead limit my comments to those items that appeared only in the excerpt that can be seen in its entirety here.

I cannot fault Mr. Iacocca for expressing his outrage over the situations that our country faces today. Rather, it is in the stated causes of his anger as well as his assessment of just what the problems actually are with which I disagree. Nowhere in these excerpts does he find anything right with the country. In general, Mr. Iacocca’s positions on most issues appear very simplistic, which to me is quite surprising considering his broad experience and public exposure. His way of expressing himself is similar to a college freshman who is writing his first essay in Political Science 101. Perhaps it is his anger getting the best of him, but he uses popular expressions such as the Democrats’ shopworn spinmeister clichés of “tax-cuts for the rich” and “the Administration lied” (about Iraq), which have absolutely no basis in fact but are used as regularly and as inaccurately as was “Remember the Maine!” over one hundred years ago. These epithets have been uttered by left-wing critics long enough to have acquired unto themselves the perception of truth, but Mr. Iacocca should know better if his sources of news and information extend beyond a daily newspaper and, perhaps, MSNBC.

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is

America

, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the

United States

is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of

America

my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

Who are the “bozos” to whom he refers? Is he talking about the President, who has an approval rating in the low 30’s? Is he talking about Congress, whose overall approval rating is about ten points lower? Or is he talking about both? Just whose phone is the President tapping? Mr. Iacocca’s? He isn’t tapping mine. Nor is he tapping his. If either Mr. Iacocca or I would place a telephone call to a known terrorist in Germany or

Spain

, it is likely that U.S. Homeland Security would know that the call was placed, and what telephone numbers were involved. Unless there was a pattern of such calls, there would be no wiretaps placed on either of our phones. If Mr. Iacocca would cool down long enough to gather some facts instead of just shooting from the hip, he would probably be glad that the government was aware that someone in Lakewood, Colorado was making regular telephone calls to a known terrorist location in another country. That is just one way in which the government works to prevent terrorist attacks in

America

. He completely overlooks the fact that there is a group of Islamic Jihadists out there who want to do us harm. Maybe he believes that if we just ignored them they would go away, or that we should wait until they strike to do anything about it. Then we could blame the “bozos” after the fact rather than before. It appears that he would prefer to believe that 9/11, the train bombings in Spain, and the London subway attacks were all just aberrations, cooked up by those “bozos” with the free pass to ignore the Constitution. He is most likely unaware that the thwarting of the terrorist attacks on airliners flying out of London last year was the result of just such intelligence techniques. Or perhaps he would still prefer that those “bozos” would not able to obtain such information. It is really quite simple. People who are worried about having their telephones tapped should not place calls to known terrorists. Meanwhile, Mr. Iacocca should do a little more reading to find out what it is what is really going on in the world rather than hurl blind accusations that do little to enhance his credibility.

After you slash through all of the angry rhetoric, there is some value to what Mr. Iacocca has to say. We do have problems in

America

today, but the major problem is the political and philosophical divide that this type of screed merely promotes. Although many Americans, including yours truly, do share his outrage to one degree or another, one gets the impression that he is like a drowning swimmer, thrashing about and waving his arms, calling for someone, anyone, to come to rescue him from the perilous situation in which he finds himself. He calls for a new leadership that has the courage of its convictions to, but berates our current President for doing precisely that. He writes, “ A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing.” But because Iacocca does not personally agree with the President in how the War In Iraq has been conducted, George Bush does not have the necessary quality of “character” that he says a true leader must possess. Outside of his comments about the war, Mr. Iacocca’s points are vague and general. Other than outlining certain characteristics that he says are lacking in today’s leaders, he offers no concrete suggestions to right the ship of state. On the other hand, this type of ranting appeals to the widest array of readers, in that it allows them to “fill in the blanks” with their own favorite agenda. Who and where are the people today who could fill these worthy shoes? Perhaps Mr. Iacocca himself? Could this be the opening salvo of a wannabe presidential candidate? At 82, that is doubtful. Perhaps he merely has too much time on his hands and wants to become a blogger. His writing suggests that either motive could be correct.

If these excerpts are any indication, I do not believe that the book Where Have All the Leaders Gone? will become a cause célèbre in American political literature. Mr. Iacocca has already solidified his worthy reputation as one of

America

’s most successful and reputable entrepreneurs. I will be very surprised if this book does anything to improve that status.

The fearsome Russian Bear appears to be coming out of a 16-year hibernation. President Vladimir Putin says he wants to regain Russia's prominence in the world community, and his actions are backing up his words. Unencumbered by Marxist dogma, he is attempting to regain Russia's superpower status by the old Soviet method of intimidation.

Putin has directed the seizure of assets of the oil giant Yukos, and restricted oil supplies to Eastern Europe. But if he can decree such gross confiscation of property, then there is no rule of law and Russia's reforms mean nothing. Moreover, Moscow has drastically raised energy prices and threatened an oil cutoff in former client nations that have had the dared to pursue economic and political independence apart from Russia.

Putin sees Russia's vast petroleum reserves as more than a means to economic growth, but as an avenue to superpower status once again. Last year, Russia was the second-highest oil producer in the world after Saudi Arabia. Their GDP has grown at an average rate of 5.5% since 2000, largely by energy exports.

Now that world oil prices are high, and rising, his strategy is working. But if they fall, Russia will be in trouble, as was the USSR following the price collapse of oil in the 1980s.

Russians wearily remember the early days of democracy following the collapse of the USSR. That was a time when an erratic, and perhaps alcoholic President Yeltsin governed the country. It was a time when their money became worthless, and crime ran wild.

Most Russians would rather have a strong and secure nation than one that guarantees personal freedoms. This sentiment, and the growing economy, is the basis for Putin's broad popularity. A recent poll found only 16 percent of Russians surveyed want to see Western-style democracy remain in their country. Predictability is perhaps the greatest comfort to the average Russian.

Demographically, however, Russia is a nation that is slowly dying. The country has dwindling birthrates, and amazingly, declining life expectancy. That portends a bleak economic outlook unless they can leverage their energy resources to attain higher growth rates. This is Putin's strategy.

Since he became president, rising oil revenues have allowed the Russian defense budget to grow enormously. Defense outlays for 2007 are at a post-Soviet high of $32.4 billion, rising 23 percent in the past year, and four times expenditures of 2001.

Instability in the Middle East leads to higher oil prices, and works to Russia's financial advantage. For obvious reasons, therefore, Moscow wants to stir the pot. But it's a balancing act. They don't want to unnerve things so badly that the Saudis, or anyone else, feel so threatened that they glut the market with cheap oil.

Other sources of revenue come from sales of arms and nuclear technology. In arms sales alone, Moscow exported $6 billion in 2006 to more than 70 countries. Before Putin, most Russian arms sales were those of old Soviet-era armored vehicles and military aircraft. Since they shipped them to Africa and other remote places, no one was overly concerned about it.

But recent sales have increasingly turned to sophisticated weapons, including precision-guided munitions, and advanced air-defense systems. And they are selling them to rogue regime Iran and to Venezuela, among others. They have the dual purpose of aggravating the U.S. while earning Russia money.

Following 9/11, Putin agreed to allow Americans to stage the Afghanistan invasion from bases in former Soviet central Asian republics. Washington's reluctance now to depart from these bases has become troublesome to Moscow.

Overreach by NATO hasn't helped either. With China to the east, radical Islam to the south, and NATO's advancement from the west, Putin fears Russia is being threatened and encircled.

When the Soviet Army departed former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe, they were not expecting NATO to expand eastward. But that is exactly what happened. Not only did Poland and the Czech Republic join NATO, the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have joined too.

These days, the most important political question in Russia is over who will succeed Putin when his second term expires in 2008. He is much admired, and almost certainly would be reelected if he were eligible to run. Though the Russian Constitution forbids him from running for a third term, it doesn't stop conjecture that he may do so anyway. No matter what the law or his legitimacy may be, many believe he has the support and authority to stay in power. His actions in 2008 will foretell much about which direction, whether cooperative or confrontational, the country is heading.

Russia's culture and history are tied to Western civilization. While recent events may give pause, we should encourage those foundations, and work to advance our common interests. The fight against radical Islam -- whether in Iran, Iraq, Chechnya, or elsewhere -- is one that Russia should unite with the West.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was our adversary. Russia need not be our adversary today.
_______________________

Jeff Lukens is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, a conservative issue advocacy and information group established to promote and defend conservative social, political and economic principles nationally. It is a non-partisan, nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation.

He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1980, and from Boston University in 1984 with a Master's Degree in Business Administration. He served as an officer in the U.S. Army in the 1980s.

The Drum and Cannon joins Black Five in promoting an article appearing at the premium website The Belmont Club, entitled Deliver Us From Evil. From Iraq and Afghanistan to our own pristine Shenandoah Valley, the home of Virginia Tech, we have been confronted by sinister events conducted by hateful people that have needlessly taken lives. The debate rages on as to whether the perpetrators of these events should be labeled as being "evil", and whether what they do should be called "evil". Regardless of what it is called, how do we deal with this deadly behavior? It is not so much the fact that "evil" thoughts occur to most of us from time to time, but rather how our culture has taught us about how to deal with these thoughts.

While the article itself is stimulating and thought-provoking, the comments that follow are equally insightful. It is our humble opinion that one of those comments in particular, written by the article's author himself, stands out as being on a level equal to those of our nation's founding fathers, perhaps not in literary flair, but definitely in thoughtfulness and relevance. Author "Wretchard" writes:

Part of the problem, philosophically speaking, is we have freedom. Freedom is typically regarded as a gift; and so it is. But it is also a font of unimaginable power.

Fantastic wonders are ours to achieve. The cure of cancer. The exploration of out and inner space. Teleportation. But equally vast horrors are within our compass. Much of the clamor for government regulation, I think comes from people who want to return our freedom; who don't trust ourselves with it. "Take it back! We don't want it!" And so we give all our power to a few other human beings and trust them to save us from ourselves -- only to discover, to no one's surprise, that they are also men to whom whispers also come at night.

Perhaps the real attraction of the environmental movement is the unconscious desire to return to Eden. To go back to the time before we had freedom; to die younger, perhaps, but untouched by what we no longer dare to name.

Unfortunately, there may be no escape from freedom; no return to paradise. The way out lies forward, past all the menacing shadows we glimpse ahead. The advantage of generations past was that they knew the meaning of those shadows, and the best of them guarded themselves on their way. But today we prefer to whistle in the dark and repeat to ourselves that perils do not exist. For so terrifying are they that for some it would be worthwhile to deny everything for so long as we could deny the reality of our suspicions.

One of the most interesting things about the Internet is that it has the ability to magnify ideas, to amplify means. To give shape to notions. Think something and write something and it may well come true. It's a really scary thought that a thought typed into your keyboard can take shape and knock on your door. The American Thinker speculates on how much of what was on Cho's brain was picked up from his English classes as described on their websites. Nobody made Cho do it. But damn, there's that accursed freedom again.

Whether you are talking about the inferent conflict with Islamic Jihad that many of us believe is an inevitable fact of life, or our own conflicts that we face as we go about our everyday lives, our freedom gives us a choice in how to deal with them. Some of us cannot handle this. Read on.

In what I would consider to be the back-burner category of recent news items, the two issues relating to shock jock Don Imus and the insignificant Alec Baldwin drew far more attention than either event warranted. Both, however, relate to the above article in that they point out the sickness that pervades our society today. The media completely overplayed the impact that Imus's intemperate remark should have had on the Rutgers Girl's Basketball team, portraying them as pitiful victims of something approaching the Holocaust when, in reality, they should have

been easily able to shake it off as nothing more than the show business schtick of a third-rate purveyor of media flatulence. The media, with the help of victim-designators Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, convinced the girls that if they played their "victim" roles to the fullest, they would be able to gain attention and fame far beyond what the circumstances warranted. Nor do I harbor any sorrow for Imus himself, since I am convinced of the basic fact that radio shows like his and that of Michael Savage are testaments to the low levels of taste and propriety that too many Americans share today. Should they be banned from radio? No they should not, because they come to us as a part of the freedom that Wretchard discusses in the above article. The public itself, however, also has the freedom to either tell or not tell itself that Imus and his ilk that their flavor of effluence will no longer be accepted as a part of American life. The rest is up to commercial sponsors.

The release of actor Alec Baldwin's voice-mail message to his daughter may have been an invasion of his privacy, but it in no way diminishes the total ignorance and lack of self-control that was displayed in his tirade. If Baldwin had an IQ out of double digits, he would easily recognize that his daughter's apparent refusal to talk to him is probably a learned response resulting from the same self-absorbed and tyrannical narcissism that other actors, producers, and directors have attributed to him.

What is even more disturbing was that, being the focus of many radio talk shows last week, so many of the hosts and more than one psychologist/psychiatrist gave him a free pass, rationalizing that sometimes teenagers (she is not yet a teenager) are capable of pressing a parent's buttons until any semblance of a civil response disappears. I am sorry, but I do not buy that "not-responsible" crap. There is never an excuse for belittling or insulting one's own children, and anyone whose own lack of self-discipline and restraint makes him or her unable to control a confrontational situation should not have had children in the first place. Any parent who does not consistently illustrate respect for his or her own children should not expect any measure of respect in return. Conversely, parents who do not sew a sense of values and self-respect in their children and instead promote hate or victim status are likely to reap the results as well.

It is not easy being a parent. It is apparently far beyond the capability of one of life's losers who is Alec Baldwin. Fame and fortune are fleeting. Children are forever.
____________________