How is one to address the ethical implosion on campus, from pampered student bullies to timid professors to invertebrate presidents? We forget that the campus is a contradiction in terms. American higher education fears the consequences of its own ideology—from its exploitation of part-time Ph.D. faculty to the scam of hiking the rate of tuition increases above the rate of inflation and pegging it to guaranteed student loans, which it knows its customers cannot pay back.
by Victor Davis Hanson // NRO – The Corner
President Obama just said this about Donald Trump’s disparagement of the last seven years: “In the echo chamber that is presidential politics, everything is dark and everything is terrible.” Presidential candidates “don’t seem to offer many solutions for the disasters that they perceive, but they’re quick to tell you who to blame . . . I’m here to say there’s nothing particularly patriotic or American about talking down America, especially when we stand as one of the few sources of economic strength in the world.” In 2008 candidate Obama, then in Trump’s current contender position, said this about a lame-duck sitting president, while more or less kept talking down both America and its then-current government for most of the campaign: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. In Obama’s world, when you attack a sitting president, you do so on grounds that he is unpatriotic; when you are a sitting president you defend yourself from those who do what you did, also on grounds they are unpatriotic. In Obama’s alternate universe, adding $4 trillion is unpatriotic and irresponsible, but adding $9 trillion “by his lonesome” is exactly what? And if Obama as a senator voted to shut down the government over that accruing $4 trillion, what should do the Senate do about double that amount?
I have written for National Review since the third bleak day after September 11, 2001, and have not missed a column since. I live and work on the West Coast, but the editors and writers at NR in New York over the years have seemed like a family, with long traditions back to, and reverence for, William F. Buckley’s original vision of a conservative voice in the wilderness of growing liberal chaos.
by Victor Davis Hanson // NRO-The Corner
The problem with George Stephanopoulos’s Clinton-gate mess is that his own words prove him to be both a bully and a hypocrite, as well as abjectly unethical.
Set aside the fact that — if not outed — he would likely never have informed his viewership about his contributions to the Clinton Foundation (and presumably would have continued to grill authors like Peter Schweizer for attacking the pay-for-play Clinton culture).
In July 2008 Todd Purdum wrote a devastating and controversial take-down of Bill Clinton for Vanity Fair, outlining the sort of ethical and personal lapses that are back in the news seven years later. The Left largely welcomed the exposé because it came at the expense of a tiring Hillary Clinton primary campaign — and to the benefit of an ascendant Barack Obama. Indeed, the essay at the time was felt to have repelled a number of Democrats. Now, of course, Peter Schweitzer’s similar assessment wins no such accolades, since there is no one comparable to Obama as a preferable alternative to Hillary. Still, Purdue’s insights today read uncannily prescient, and raised issues that were never addressed and quickly forgotten once Hillary faded from the primaries — and so went unanswered over the next few years, almost if the Clintons assumed the one-time mention of them was synonymous with their resolution.
Though polls employ different scientific methodologies, as a whole they are more often right than wrong. Everyone assumes that sampling public opinion remains an art, and is not immune from the biases of the pollster. Still, how does one explain not just discrepancies, but massive ones, between polls?
Currently the Rasmussen poll — once seen as tilting conservative, now believed to lean even more toward liberals — shows a 49 percent/49 percent split in public approval of President Obama. But the Reuters/Ipsos poll — not known for conservative bias — records a negative 16 percent gap (39 percent approval/55 percent disapproval).
by Victor Davis Hanson // NRO- The Corner
Some, like Ezra Klein, have posited that Rudy Giuliani’s suggestion that Obama may not be patriotic and Scott Walker’s hesitation to assert that Obama is a Christian illustrate a sort of unhinged Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Aside from the fact that Obama himself characterized President George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” (for overseeing deficits at about half the size of the debt that Obama will bestow on us in his tenure), and aside from Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s chronic tendency to smear their conservative critics as “un-American,” there should be an easy standard to identify the point at which criticism becomes clinically deranged.
It is disheartening to listen to Obama and his administration voices childishly reiterating that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam because it does not represent the majority of Muslims or what Westerners perceive as normative values distilled from the Koran.
No radical ideology, religious or otherwise, starts out coherently, much less representing the majority; but it eventually can if appeased and left unchallenged.
Imagine Obama as an American president in 1939.
by Victor Davis Hanson // PJMedia
“The United States has made significant gains  in our struggle against violent extremism in Europe. We are watching carefully aggressions in Czechoslovakia, Austria, and in Eastern Europe. My diplomatic team has made it very clear that aggression against neighbors is inappropriate and unacceptable. We live in the 20th century, where the 19th century practice  of changing borders by the use of force has no place in the present era.
“Let me be perfectly clear: Mr. Hitler is playing to a domestic audience. He adopts a sort of macho shtick, as a cut-up in the back of the class who appeals to disaffected countrymen. Our task is to demonstrate to Mr. Hitler that his current behavior is not really in his own interest, and brings neither security nor profit to Germany.