The Pendragon's Hall

President Bush's rather interesting decision to endorse Joe Lieberman for Senate over a Republican candidate is beginning to attract some notice. The Pendragon was asked what he would do, if he were a loyal Connecticut Republican. I have to say I think Mr. Bush has chosen the right path. A Republican will not win in Connecticut and a vote for one would simply ensure the traitor Lamont be elected. It is better to go with the undoubtedly liberal, but certainly patriotic, Joe Lieberman than to vote blindly against your own program. I have few issues on which I agree with the senator, but the one issue that trumps all is a vigorous and spirited waging of the war on terror and we agree on this one. Senator Lieberman has supported his country in the war on terror and the fact that he embraces a left-of-center worldview on domestic issues is unable to quell this. For the first, but perhaps not the last time, the Pendragon departs from party politics and endorses Joe Lieberman for Senate in Connecticut.

In only the latest installment of how everything is now news, Forbes magazine this past week released a list of the 34 "Drunkest Cities in America." Ironically most of them seem to be in the Midwest. The Pendragon was amused to see that Milwaukee is number 1. I suppose that explains why their baseball team is "the Brewers." It may also explain why they are so bad--perhaps they're all drunk. Or possibly, people get so drunk because their team is so bad. Cities with good teams either didn't make the list or were quite far down. I do not know what possible use it can serve knowing what cities are "the drunkest" especially when the magazine has to issue a whole series of clarifications, explaining that they didn't mean to suggest that "drunkest" meant being careless with their drinks and so on. Just one more example of the media's new fascination with classifying everyone.

A conservative columnist wrote yesterday that Bush's last chance to rescue his legacy is to remove the UN from its headquarters in NYC and remove the US from the UN's list of members. In exchange, the United States will form its own global coalition of democratic regimes around the world, no dictators, no theocracies, no terrorists. It couldn't hurt--our money could go to something more worthwhile. But by "democratic regimes" we must understand "regimes that serve the interests of their people." A committed conservative Republican, the Pendragon nevertheless echoes an older time when monarchy was thought to serve the interests of the people. Certainly a king who does what is best for his people is better than a president who serves only his narrow, political self-interest. The Pendragon is far from convinced that Britain, for example, should continue its policy of demotion until its royal head is finally and absolutely a figurehead. It seems to me that in a day where the King had some wiggle room, he (or she in the case of a Queen) might rise above politics and lead their country in a way that kept with its national self-interest. The more a professionally political Parliament takes over, the less a monarch has to do that's real, small wonder the royal family becomes a playboy group dedicated to their own pleasure above all. They've never been taught to value their position or their country. But a real, vibrant monarch, with an elected body of advisors to keep him or her attuned to the needs of the people, may well serve their interest far better than an elected government. The Pendragon would like it noted that he is not arguing for the demolition of functioning democracies to make room for a monarch, but a few years ago Fareed Zakaria suggested, echoing Aristotle centuries before him, that the US should promote a culture of liberalism, of government within the realm of law, and not necessarily the ballots and outer trimmings of democracy which more often than not revert to the same strong men who ran the country in its dictator days. The US, if it ever does form an alternative global community, should use these kinds of standards and not the standard of democratic election to determine worthy candidates for entry.

This is rich. According to several news headlines the last couple of days Madam Haw-haw, Hillary Clinton, claims that she can't take Dick Cheney seriously anymore and that he has done "untold damage" to the country. This from the woman who now has a bust that looks like a death mask in the Museum of Sex in New York City, whose husband claimed he smoked marijuana but "didn't inhale" and who engaged in oral sex with an intern and then lied to cover it up, who blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan but turned down the offer of Osama bin Laden on a silver plate, and this is the lady who couldn't wait for a senate seat to turn up in a state she actually lived in, so she foisted herself upon the nation at large by running for office in a state she had never lived in and knew nothing about. This is the lady whose staff pillaged the White House before leaving and who fired longtime White House employees to replace them with her own cronies; the one who said she discussed politics with Bill while cutting his grapefruit, the one who singlehandedly gave Congress back to the Republicans in 1994 by espousing a socialist healthcare program like Cuba and North Korea. Where she gets the serious clout to even say that she doesn't take anyone seriously is beyond me.

A little perspective would be nice. The Leftist bloggers are griping about the new airline restrictions claiming, falsely of course, they would gladly run the risk of a terrorist attack to be able to take drinks and knives on board a plane. While the Pendragon is sorry that the apparentlyu sacrosanct constitutional right to take a Gatorade on board a plane is being threatened, the government would be held responsible if it did not take steps to prevent terrorism and another attack occurred. Grow up a little and stop whining about everything.

The Pendragon is growing increasingly frustrated with the idiocy of college-educated Americans. It is almost a shame to have to count oneself among them. While listening in to a group of co-workers yesterday discuss the foiled terrorist plot in Britain, I heard comments like the following: "I'm so sick of hearing people talk about 9/11. Get over it." And: "Another excuse to raise the terror alert and try to convince people they're in danger. You guys feel in danger?" Then, of course, they launched into horror stories of the abuses they and their poor friends have to suffer through at airport security checkpoints. I guess they would rather have their plane blown up in midair. Despite the fact that these security measures are a product of a Japanese Democrat and not the President, Bush somehow gets blamed for them. The other day someone said they wanted to save the world, to which it was rejoined: "You want to kill George Bush." Why him? Why kill the man who stands between us and a world where Islamic thugs dictate the terms of living? Why not "You want to kill Osama bin Laden?" The Pendragon is sorely ashamed of his fellow college graduate and can only hope none of them get nearer to power than a ballot box. They are dangerous enough to world peace there. I guess the old adage rings true: "The difference between college and the insane asylum is that in an asylum you have to show improvement to get out."

And with the end of the Connecticut Democratic Primary on Tuesday, the last elected Democrat for whom the Pendragon had any mote of respect for is now history in his own party. I do not mourn Senator Lieberman--he will still win in November--but I do mourn that an entire "mainstream" political party is now completely in the hands of the radical Left. Lieberman was a staunch defender of the Clintons in the late 1990s, served as the vice-presidential candidate in Al Gore's failed presidential bid in 2000, sought the Democratic nomination himself in 2004, is against banning gay marriage, for the Kyoto Accords, campaigned for John Kerry, is pro-choice even about partial-birth abortion, opposed all of Bush's tax cuts, voted against Bush's judicial nominees and still refuses to support drilling in the Arctic. His Leftist credentials are unimpeachable--why, then, has he lost his own primary to an unknown? The sad truth is, Senator Lieberman was driven from his party because unlike all of his elected colleagues, Senator Lieberman is not a traitor to his country. I did not agree with the man on nearly everything that he said or did, but the reason I respected him was that he had a valid alternative to the Republicans without trying to undermine the President in his prosecution of our war of self-defense against Islamic terrorists. But the Democrats of Connecticut have spoken: They prefer the kook fringes of the Left with their unreasoning hatred of Bush and their treasonous opposition to America protecting itself to a solid, liberal alternative that has a chance of winning. It won't last till November but it confirms something Whittacker Chambers said half a century ago: "The loyal Democrats of this country no longer have a party."

What is with all these polls asking people if they "like" George Bush? The United States of America is quickly going the way of South America and that's not good. No one dares criticize a ruler in South America because of his "popularity" with people. But what does liking a president have to do with anything? The Pendragon, apparently a throwback to an earlier time, would prefer, "Do you respect George Bush?" Even fear is a better guage of how well a President is doing than liking. Being president is necessarily a job where some people aren't going to like you. But liking is the new standard in the US apparently because we're so obssessed with people liking us as a nation. I honestly couldn't care less how many countries "like" us--although it would be fun someday to see an American poll asking how well we "like" the French or how well we "like" the Russians. We might get some interesting answers there.

It never ceases to amaze me that Mel Gibson can get drunk and shoot off his mouth for awhile and it's frontpage news: he's anti-Semitic! We were right! And there is great rejoicing. Yet European politicians can routinely call for Israel to lay down its arms and let Hezbollah destroy it, calling Israelis terrorists, and nobody thinks to call them anti-Semitic. That's very much like noting Martin Luther's "anti-Semitism" and not mentioning Hitler's.

The Leftist historians follow very predictable patterns: they spend decades excoriating a figure; then, when they realize no one believes them, they decide to recreate said figure in their own image. Richard the Lionheart was a greatly admired king for years until political correctness set it and any King who made his living killing off Muslims in the Holy Land could not have been quite so great. So he was called a bumbling buffoon with good PR. But because all manly men must somehow be gay, historians have recently decided (based on what evidence I have no idea) that he was a homosexual. And this is why he didn't have children.

The latest American to face their repainting has been the great Theodore Roosevelt. After years of being sneered at as an imperialist, racist president, he is now somehow becoming the image of progressivism. The Pendragon is currently reading a book of TR's writings entitled "The Man in the Arena", even a cursory reading of which shows how completely at-home TR would be in today's Republican Party and how completely anti-"Progressive" he actually would be, despite his 1912 third-party run for president. Even TR's vaunted environmentalism is not the same as the leftists of today. In African Game Trails, he wrote: "Similarly, game laws should be drawn in the interests of the whole people, keeping steadily in mind certain facts that ought to be self-evident to everyone above the intellectual level of those well-meaning persons who apparently think all shooting is wrong and that man could continue to exist if all the wild animals were allowed to increase unchecked." This sound more like George Bush, who agreed that environmental concerns were valid, but insisted that they be based on science, than like Al Gore and the nutwing Sierra Club types. For the record, if TR were alive today, he would not be attending poetry readings in Boston--he would be swigging beer down at the NASCAR track and cheering loudly for good hits in the football game. He was no pansy, this TR. That should have been everyone's first clue he was no Leftist.

TR's pro-Americanism was breathtaking. He argued in his The Winning of the West that the inherent military and civilizational superiority of the Anglo-Saxon peoples led to the conquest of North America. While his analysis is very much in doubt, at least to the Pendragon, it is intriguing that the new icon of Leftism was boldly pro-American. Perhaps the most convincing evidence, however, was that TR was tough on crime. As police commissioner in New York City, he not only combatted big-business corruption but also low-life criminal elements. On dangerous criminals, he commented: "Sentimentality on behalf of such men is really almost as unhealthy and wicked as the criminality of the men themselves." Pause for a moment to hear the "ouch" emanate from the Left of today, who insist on giving serial killers chance after chance to get their 100th kill and feel good about themselves. TR continues (keep in mind this is the TR that everyone calls the scourge of the business world) on the subject of employers of prostitutes: "The employers and all others responsible for these conditions stand on a moral level not far above the white slavers themselves. But it is a mistake to suppose that either the correction of these economic conditions or the abolition of the white slave trade will wholly correct the evil, or will even reach the major part of it." What?! Punishing rich people won't help the poor? TR goes on to claim that what really needs to be done is the demand for the services of prostitutes needs to be stamped out, and girls need to be told there are better ways for them to earn money. Intriguing possibility--sounds like what Republicans have been saying for years.

TR was no friend to the judiciary, which was as corrupt in his day as it is today. He mocked it in his autobiography for enforcing the laws on only drinking alcohol with meals by declaring a meal to consist of "seventeen beers and one pretzel." The liqour establishment rejoiced, he noted sourly, that TR's tyrannical power had been curbed. Boy, would he and Bush have a lot in common.

We could go on and on. TR was no modern day liberal. There were elements of his program that appealed to blue collar people of course and he was a little left of center in his own day. But the myth that is rapidly growing that with TR's defeat in the 1912 presidential election, the Republican Party collapsed hopelessly into reactionism while the reform elements became Democrats is just that: a myth. The TR syndrome is alive and well today but not in the Democratic Party. The idea of manly reform keeping with the American tradition is being nurtured by the Bush White House and by his allies in Congress and the states. Historians need to read the texts fully, rather than look for ways to change long-held perceptions of a historical character into something they find more palatable.

Just when you thought the Democrats had claimed all the minorities, along comes a courageous black man like Vernon Robinson and dares to stand up to them. Hear his campaign ad for Congress. He will get grief like nobody's business but it is about time Republicans called a spade a spade. Vernon Robinson for US Congress.