More than fifteen years have passed since the end of the Cold War with the former Soviet Union and the United States and the world are continuing to struggle to determine how to shape global politics with only one world super power.  

The Cold War, despite its ever present cloud of potential nuclear annihilation, provided a certain order to world politics.  The global community mostly fell in line with one super power or the other and most global activity was undertaken with the knowledge that even small regional conflicts could force the super powers to take sides in support of allies and potentially come in conflict with each other.  Consequently, the super powers were able to maintain world order albeit a tense order.

Today, no such balance exists in global politics.  The U.S. is the only world super power and thus the world’s de facto policeman.  Conflicts in regions outside our historical sphere of influence have no other global voice to calm them.  The United States is left to try and maintain the global peace leaving the perception of U.S. bullying and self interest where no historical alliance exists to provide moral justification for U.S. intervention.

Clearly, the world still needs U.S. leadership.  In a vacuum of leadership, someone will always step up to fill the void.  Neither the United States nor other peaceful nations want such a void.  At this point in history, what the world needs is a New Global Federalism.  Not “one world government” with it’s overtones of U.S. domination or end-times prophecy, but a pragmatic relationship of nations in which the United States operates as a unifying central power and other nations operate as the sovereign states of the global community.

In a federalist arrangement, the federal government has sufficient powers to represent and unite the states, but not supplant the states. This federal arrangement, by which the central federal government exercises delegated power over some issues and the state governments exercise power over other issues, is one of the basic characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that checks governmental power.

So what should U.S. leadership look like in the coming decades?  First, the global community must recognize that the United States, as the only world super power, (many might argue that China is a super power but at this point they lack either the capacity to act in a leadership role or the will, or perhaps both) is the only nation in a position to exercise leadership in the global community.  The world must have leadership and the United States is the only country with the economic, military and moral capacity to exercise such leadership.  Addditionally, the global community must work diligently to be heard; it must exercise its own power and must be willing to sacrifice in pursuit of global political objectives.  If other nations are simply going to sit on the sidelines and criticize U.S. leadership and behaviors, then they should not expect to have significant influence in events around the world.  A stable global community benefits every nation, but if the U.S. is going to be the only nation sacrificing—troops, economic opportunities, and lifestyles—then the U.S. should have a disproportionate benefit from its actions.  Other nations can only establish their legitimacy in the political process by demonstrating their absolute commitment to achieving the goals from which they too will benefit.  Otherwise, the United States will simply end up the administrator of a global welfare state where other nations stand in line to accept handouts from the programs the United States implements.

Secondly, and more importantly, the United States must assume this role humbly.  The end of the Cold War ended a period of easy political polarization and gave rise to a climate in which more nations have access to influence in global decision making.  From a federalist point of view, the states got stronger.  The United States must be more interested in political pragmatism--not less.  If the United States, viewing itself as the only world super power, seizes the opportunity to impose its will upon the global community, it will be pursuing a role as dictator not federal-leader and will find itself vilified and alone.  However, if the United States pursues its leadership role with humility, acknowledging the legitimacy of other voices and endeavors to hear the concerns of other governments, then the United States will find itself with greater influence than ever before.  Humble leadership means sometimes not putting the hammer down and accepting the will of the states.  

I have always said that “leaders lead best who desire leadership least.”  By that I mean that those who seek power for power’s sake often pursue it selfishly at the expense of the greater good and ultimately alienate those who are being led.  But when leadership is exercised as a duty and an obligation born out of humility and respect then those being led are able to achieve more than they ever could have on their own. Humility is not a demonstration of weakness.  Humility in leadership is the demonstration of strength.

America’s leadership position can never be formalized or publicly acknowledged, but it must be enacted by the United States first, beginning to behave as I’ve described.  The United States must begin to exercise statesmanship in our dealings with other nations. We must invite other nations into the political process, not just to appease them, but to genuinely desire their input.  The United States has never shied away from its responsibility to provide leadership and has done so even when such leadership has been difficult and unpopular.  That’s the cost of leadership . We should not feel compelled to appease the global community.  Leadership has its price and for the United States that price is often paid in American blood and frequently to the displeasure of other nations. But the events of the last two decades have now created an unprecedented opportunity for a rise in U.S. power, not a decline.  

I read Laura Ingraham’s newest book, Power to the People, last fall and have been mulling it over ever since.  I enjoyed it for many reasons, not the least of which was the consistent expression of authentically conservative values. Yet her essential point is that the power, which rightly rests with the people, must be returned to the people.   But therein lies my complaint: nothing needs to be returned. The people never lost the power.  What the people have lost is the will to exercise the power.

I continue to believe that authentic conservatism (which is very different from what you hear espoused on Republican Talk Radio throughout the day) is bridge building not polarizing.  For centuries the United States has served as the world’s melting pot—a place where differences have been welcomed and often celebrated.  A desire to be a part of America was the first and most important step in becoming an American.  “E Pluribus Unum” it says on our money:  “Out of many, one.”  What slogan better embodies the American experience, whether first experienced in your family by your great, great, great grandparents, or by you personally?

There is an underlying authentically conservative similarity in Americans—we cherish our families, we love our country, we are inherently charitable and kind, we value our nation’s holidays and traditions and we are proud of who we are and where we came from.

This is most easily seen in our behavior when tough times befall our great nation.  In the aftermath of 9/11, we were able to see beyond our individual differences and address our collective health.  When we are tested, we bond together and see ourselves as one nation.  

But good times will, as surely as bad times, test our mettle.  I suspect it is human nature, but when times are good our individual behavior is considerably more libertarian than conservative.  We begin to focus more on ourselves than on our communities.  We lose sight of a compelling reason to stay involved because we don’t feel threatened.  What’s the point of committing time and energy when the status quo is sufficient?

Decades of relative ease have encouraged our libertarian behavior and we have become complacent about our participation in our democracy.  Not exercising power has left us feeling powerless.  In reality, we have always had more power than we’ve chosen to exercise. In a representative democracy we have the power to hire and fire our elected officials. In a market driven economy, consumers have complete control.  If we don’t like the way airlines treat us, we shouldn’t fly.  If we think athletes are spoiled and make too much money, we should stop buying tickets.  If we think the language is too vulgar on television, we should stop watching.  If we fear Chinese economic expansion, we should stop shopping at Wal-Mart. The loss of market share and money speaks volumes and these actions will bring about change.  

But, we are addicts to our entertainment, comfort and ease.  We are complacent and take our freedoms for granted.  Sure we FEEL powerless but we must admit that our attention is easily drawn to what we want--away from what is best for society.  That’s not a finger pointed at you; it’s a finger pointed at us, me included.

In fact, what Ms. Ingraham proposes is the very liberalism we detest. She proposes that we anxiously wait for the day when a Republican Congress hands power back to the people.  Waiting for government handouts is precisely the attitude that makes many Americans recoil, whether it is welfare, health care, or a return of individual power.  We should not be looking to government to give us anything.  Rather, we-the-people delegated certain powers to the government in the Constitution and the remaining powers we maintained, regardless of how often we choose to exercise them.

The American family is stretched financially and has too few hours in the day.  There is little time left to participate in democracy the way we should. We are focused on our families, our jobs, and our hobbies. At the end of the day, when the kids have been bathed and put to bed, when the email is checked and the bills paid, we choose to escape the daily grind with an hour of Sports Center, The Deadliest Catch, American Idol, a book or a magazine.  We’re not inclined to re-motivate and head out to the community meeting at the Library.

We-the-people already have the power. Returning it to us isn’t the trick. The trick is to convince us that the costs involved in exercising that power are investments that will pay dividends to our kids and our communities and which are worthwhile expenditures of our time.

Reading Power to the People convicted me to the point where I vowed that I would at least go to the first homeowner’s association meeting of the New Year.  But I spent the day with my family at the zoo and grocery shopping at Wal-Mart. When the meeting started, I was on the sofa watching the NBA All-Star Game.  I’ll go to the next meeting.

You are a small business owner.  You have one outlet selling women’s clothing in Chicago.  You are pondering the myriad of ideas and marketing techniques that could help grow your business…. and then it hits you: men hate clothes shopping with women and because of this, when men are with them, women tend to spend less time in stores.  So why not put a small sports bar in the middle of your boutique?  Dollar-fifty drafts, in view of the dressing room, all day ESPN, alcoholically reduced resistance to major expenditures—genius. 

Now what? You want to grow the business. Everyone does. As much as we all verbalize our disdain for category-dominating big-boxes, we also want to be the next person to develop one.  So, do you begin building big-boxes in every town in America; multiple locations in major cities?  Do you set a single grand opening date for 600 enormous, retail Women’s Brewtiques © for next summer?  Or do you operate the one you have for a year or two, validating the concept and working out the kinks?  With a decent prototype in hand, do you then open ONE big-box in another market, learning and fine-tuning the product? 

No sane businessman would ever do the former.  Slow and steady wins the race.  Yet this method is frequently attempted in the United States when the wave of voter discontent crashes over the bow of the SS Establishment-Candidate. Most recently, much palaver has been dedicated to a potential Michael Bloomberg, independent run for the presidency.  Additionally, the Unity08 movement was an initiative to elect someone other than a Democrat or a Republican to the highest office in the land. In light of the pseudo-success of the candidacies of Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and John Anderson such speculation is not entirely discouraging. 

In an excerpt from Douglas Schoen’s new book, DELCARING INDEPENDENCE: THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM, reprinted in the February 11 issue of US News and World Report, the premise is that a large group of voters exists in the middle—RAMs he calls them: Restless and Anxious Moderates—who are reluctant supporters of the two major parties in the country. RAMs, he says, are “…centrist, middle-aged, middle-class, practical people who believe in consensus solutions to problems.”  I know these people. 

Mr. Schoen is right to imply in the excerpt that a third party would likely address the concerns of the RAM.  As I have written previously, if the “change” America wants is a torrent of new legislation pouring out of Washington then a third party is the ideal elixir.  If only ten percent of each House were made up legislators from a third party, they would have an incredible ability to influence the passage of new bills. (We should be scared, very scared, by that possibility.) 

But let’s run with this concept  of change for a minute.  If that type of legislative efficiency is the goal, how best to achieve it?  A well formed, unified third party—a collection of swing votes beholden to neither major party. Most recent third party candidacies, however, were based on unique issue constituencies.  They were initiated with one specific issue in mind and ultimately DID achieve a modicum of success simply by bringing that issue into the public discourse. A third party candidacy is like a bee, it’s been noted—it stings once and then dies. But I don’t think the likes of Michael Bloomberg is interested in spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an issue-awareness campaign. He’d want to win. 

The way to develop a mature third party is the way ALL businesses develop:  one, well-considered step at a time.  There’s a story of a man whose mule fell into an old well.  The man couldn’t think of a way to save the mule and the well had run dry years ago, so he set about to fill the well with dirt and, in the process, bury the mule.  After each shovelful of dirt, however, the mule simply stepped up on top of the ever-growing mound.  A few hours later the well was full and the mule was free.  

A third party should begin with the intention of some day having a viable presidential candidate on the ballot—but not immediately. An instantaneous bid for market domination is doomed to failure no matter how great an idea a Brewtique © sounds.  But if a third party begins with the idea of maturing into something nationally recognized and viable then it has a chance, one shovelful of dirt at a time.  The development of a platform and a consistent ideological premise would be the first step.  Then the goal would be to slowly add elected officials from the new party at the state and federal level until the party establishes a portion of the market share. 

Additionally, it will take a protracted marketing campaign to make a dent in the business of the established companies.  In fact, did you know that several OTHER parties already exist in America, some you might even find appealing: The Jefferson-Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Green Party;  America First, Centrist, Independence, Marijuana, Peace and Freedom and an unbelievably long list of Socialist-type parties? 

The American political machine is institutionally inert—very nearly the mythical “immovable object.”  But the immovable object, by definition, cannot exist in a world where an irresistible force exists. And we know that public opinion is the   irresistible force in a representative democracy.  

If an Independent President is the goal, no individual can accomplish it in a year, regardless of how much money or panache the candidate may have.  Mr. Schoen correctly points out that, “The greatest challenge facing a third-party candidate is creating a strategy that will lead to victory in November.”  It wouldn’t be so daunting, however, if we were talking about November of 2040.

Pollsters and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are perpetuating racism and sexism in this election.  Have you noticed it?  It’s happening almost every day.

Prejudice reigns.

For all of my life, this country has been making strides in the areas of gender and racial equality.  I simply don’t know a world where women aren’t an accepted part of the work place. I don’t know a world where public displays of racism aren’t demonized.  These are signs to the leaders of those movements that they have been effective in distributing their message. Generation after generation, progress is being made. Yet this election could set both of those movements back 20 years.

In identifying the Democrats, it should be noted that this is a curious quirk of fate rather than a specific attack on the party. It’s not its fault that the remaining candidates are a woman and a black man. Nor is it the fault of the GOP that two white men remain.  But it is the Democratic candidates themselves, with the help of the pollsters, who are perpetuating racial and gender stereotypes.

Judy Day is a voter from New York.  In exit polling on February 5, explaining why she voted for Hillary Clinton, Ms. Day said, “I’m a woman and it was hard for me not to support a woman.”  Regarding voting for Barack Obama, many blacks have openly stated that they would feel like a traitor to their race if they did not vote for him.

If a woman says she’s voting for Senator Clinton because Hillary’s a woman, no one bats an eye. If a black says he’s voting for Obama because he, too, is black, we accept this without question.  If a white man had said he was going to vote for John Edwards because he’s white he would have been handed his hood and told, “The meeting’s at 7. Don’t be late.”

Taken another way, what would be the response if men routinely said, “I’m NOT voting for Hillary because she’s a woman.”  The media would be bemoaning the state of gender equality in America.  Men would be perceived as oppressing the aspirations of women.  Men would be chastised for feeling threatened. The hypocrisy in these campaigns is deplorable.

Prejudice reigns.

By no stretch am I suggesting that we go backwards and accept men verbalizing that they won’t vote for women because they’re women. Nor do I propose that we tolerate whites who say that they will not vote for a black candidate simply because he’s black.  What I do suggest is that we acknowledge that the opposing statements are equally offensive. Even affirmative racism is racism. We should be just as offended by those who say, “I’m voting for a black because I, too, am black.”

Hillary Clinton, in the recent Democratic Forum in California said of the two candidates in her party, “…they [the GOP] are more of the same. Neither of us, just by looking at us, you can tell, we are not more of the same.”  She is telling America that women and blacks are different. I was under the impression that the civil rights movement was about ending outdated ideas that blacks and women are somehow “different.”  For her to now claim that there are differences and that those differences make her more qualified for the Presidency is a perpetuation of the very thing women and blacks have been fighting against for centuries.

The alternative conclusion is that there ARE differences, and, of course, we know there are. Decades of scientific studies show that women tend to process information differently.  Women tend to work differently in groups. Women tend to respond differently to stress and the list goes on.  Are THESE the differences of which she spoke? 

Problematically, I don’t personally know Hillary Clinton so I don’t know if she is the exception or the rule in these issues. What she is asking us to do is to evaluate her using any paradigm or prejudice we have regarding women.  She is appealing to those very characteristics in each of us. “Don’t evaluate us on our accomplishments,” she seems to be saying, “Evaluate our ability to bring about change based on how we look.”  

Prejudice reigns.

If the voters are to heed her request, it follows that voters will apply those stereotypes to the male candidates as well: “Men are more decisive than women; men are less emotional than women; men are stronger than women,” we will conclude.  Are these really the criteria by which she wants the two of them to be evaluated?

It will be a great day when the gender or race of the candidates goes unnoticed. To some extent these historic firsts are simply part of the process of growth and acceptance in these issues. We should not be surprised by their inclusion in the conversation or that these ideas have a home in our hearts which pollsters seek to explore.  What I don’t expect is for the candidates themselves to now turn the tables and exploit their gender or race for their own benefit.  I also expect that pollsters will begin to be helpful agents of change in these issues not perpetuators of the ideas that Americans have long fought to terminate.

Sure, prejudice reigns. But it need not. And it’s up to us to hold Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama accountable on these issues.

Last week, on the day after the Republican Presidential Forum held in Simi Valley, California, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, John McCain was with Rudy Giuliani and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The Governor and the former New York City Mayor were formally announcing their endorsement of the Arizona Senator for President.  During a question and answer period, one journalist, noting that many California families have members who have died in Iraq in the last seven years asked Senator McCain the following: “What is worth dying for in Iraq?” 

Interesting question.  

Senator McCain responded with the usual platitudes regarding national security, jihadism and protecting the American people. 

Not so interesting answer.

Senator McCain's answer misses the most important point as much as the question does.  While I contend that  there have been many causes which were worth dying for, and may be many more to come, there is a greater reason for families to not feel their loved ones have died in vain:  duty.

Duty is not a word we often use in America any more.  Parents seldom speak to their children on the topic of duty.  Coaches seldom impart messages of duty to players.  Teachers seldom discuss the concept of duty to students. Politicians seldom mention duty to voters.  

Duty is near the top of my list of authentically conservative values.  Duty-- that short, four-letter word—speaks volumes to Americans who find honor in living a life not centered on their own ambition.  First, duty recognizes our place within a society.  We are not alone.  As much as the liberal or libertarian wishes we could live our lives in isolation, unencumbered by the weight of expectations from others, duty encompasses E PLURIBUS UNUM—out of many, one.  We are a collection of individuals operating as a single entity.  Our nation’s very name—THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—is emblematic of our connect-ness. We are many AND we are one simultaneously.  And both the whole and the parts are duty bound to each other.  Without the states there is no America. Without America we are United to nothing.

Secondly, duty acknowledges our indebtedness to the past. Being a part of something is great, but without a sense that those that have come before have done something special to make my today possible, there can be no sense of duty.  When duty is taught, it is always taught as an obligation to the past.  We teach that those who have come before us have given something to us and we are in their debt.  To eschew the lessons of their sacrifice is to render their actions moot.

Lastly, duty compels us to action.  Once we acknowledge our place in society and our debt to the past, duty compels us to act accordingly. It is now our turn to live as honorably as those who have gone before us and to give our descendents what was given to us.  Those who not only value the past, but who wish to see the next generation benefit similarly, must now set the example.

Too often we hope that a sense of duty is caught by osmosis.  It is not popular to speak of duty, to remind people that they are in debt and that personal sacrifice is in order.  But when asked directly, I am sad that someone who embodies duty as well as Senator McCain chose not to speak of its importance.

To ask the question, “what is worth dying for in Iraq?” implies that the worth of a soldier’s death is tied to an outcome.  If we “win” in Iraq, if we achieve a certain set of objectives, then and only then, will that death be suitably justified?  This is a disservice to our men and women in uniform.  Were lives sacrificed at the Alamo in vain? Were lives lost at Pearl Harbor in vain?  Were lives given in Vietnam given in vain?  If we somehow were to lose the war in Iraq, would all those lives have been for nothing?  

The sacrifice of the soldier has merit without regard to the success or failure of the objective.  To imply otherwise is to ignore the sense of duty behind the soldier’s participation.

Many families sleep each night in this country with empty bedrooms down the hall.  Many closets are filled with clothes that will never need washing again. Many children color pictures of men they can’t remember holding hands with mommy. Yet the grieving cannot and should not wait for a specific outcome in order to determine the worth of the sacrifice.  

Families need to look no further than around the kitchen table to find meaning in the tragedy they cannot forget.  Parents can look to the values they taught their children.  Families and friends can remember the sense of duty that compelled their loved ones to join the military.  They can honor the sacrifice made by their beloved by passing on the meaning of duty to the next generation.

What is worth dying for in Iraq?  Doesn’t matter. Everything an American needs to justify sacrifice is right here in America--it’s in our museums, our genealogies, our traditions and our future.  

What is worth dying for in Iraq?  Maybe not gosh-darn thing.  But everything we need to render the sacrifice of our American heroes magnificent and worthwhile is within us:  duty, honor, God and country.  They died because their country put a call upon their lives. They died because they felt duty-bound to respond to that call.  

Now THAT’S worth dying for.