Our politicians congratulate themselves on this as we stand in line. All the frisking, beeping and patting down is demoralizing to our society. It breeds resentment, encourages a sense that the normal are not in control, that common sense is yesterday.

Another thing: It reduces the status of that ancestral arbiter and leader of society, the middle-aged woman. In the new fairness, she is treated like everyone, without respect, like the loud ruffian and the vulgar girl on the phone. The middle-aged woman is the one spread-eagled over there in the delicate shell beneath the removed jacket, praying nothing on her body goes beep and makes people look.

America makes it through security, gets to the gate, waits. The TV monitor is on. It is Wolf Blitzer. He is telling us with a voice of urgency of the Pennsylvania returns. But no one looks up. We are a nation of Willie Lomans, dragging our rollies through acres of airport, going through life with a suitcase and a slack jaw, trying to get home after a long day of meetings, of moving product. No one in crowded gate 14 looks up to see what happened in Pennsylvania. No one. Wolf talks to the air. Gate 14 is small-town America, a mix, a group of people of all classes and races brought together and living in close proximity until the plane is called, and America knows what Samuel Johnson knew. "How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure." Gate 14 doesn't think any one of the candidates is going to make their lives better. Gate 14 will vote anyway, because they know they are the grownups of America and must play the role and do the job.

So: Pennsylvania. As seen from the distance of West Texas, central California and Oklahoma, which is where I've been. Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all? Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear.

This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama. He enters the scene. Act III will be the convention and acceptance speech. After that a whole new drama begins. But for now he needs Act II. He should make his subject America.

Here's some comfort for him, for all Democrats. In Lubbock, Texas - Lubbock Comma Texas, the heart of Texas conservatism - they dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it. Confusion has been followed by frustration has turned into resentment, and this is huge. Everyone knows the president's poll numbers are at historic lows, but if he is over in Lubbock, there is no place in this country that likes him. I made a speech and moved around and I was tough on him and no one - not one - defended or disagreed. I did the same in North Carolina recently, and again no defenders. I did the same in Fresno, Calif., and no defenders, not one. He has left on-the-ground conservatives - the local right-winger, the town intellectual reading Burke and Kirk, the old Reagan committeewoman - feeling undefended, unrepresented and alone. This will have impact down the road.

I finally understand the party nostalgia for Reagan. Everyone speaks of him now, but it wasn't that way in 2000, or 1992, or 1996, or even '04. I think it is a manifestation of dislike for and disappointment in Mr. Bush. It is a turning away that is a turning back. It is a looking back to conservatism when conservatism was clear, knew what it was, was grounded in the facts of the world. The reasons for the quiet break with Mr. Bush: spending, they say first, growth in the power and size of government, Iraq. I imagine some of this: a fine and bitter conservative sense that he has never had to stand in his stockinged feet at the airport holding the bin, being harassed. He has never had to live in the world he helped make, the one where grandma's hip replacement is setting off the beeper here and the child is crying there. And of course as a former president, with the entourage and the private jets, he never will. I bet conservatives don't like it. I'm certain Gate 14 doesn't.

Peggy Noonan
April 25, 2008

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120906741679842493.html
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

This vision of economics as the supreme judge of long-term national interest does not, however, take into account that in a war, we are unlikely to have the co-operation of (or even simple access to) the overseas factories that crank out the mundane items of civilian commerce today. We will not have jeans factories that can suddenly make uniforms. Our farm implement manufacturers cannot be counted on to begin making tanks. Our soap manufacturers cannot be tapped for explosives production; our motor fuels sources cannot be diverted to war use; and the factories that make pots and pans cannot make canteens and bedpans -- because many of “our” factories are located in foreign nations, staffed by foreign citizens, and they could -- quite possibly -- be busy making supplies for our enemies in some future war.

Although the United States makes some effort to maintain a high tech manufacturing base, as well as some specialized military manufacturing capacity capable of providing our tiny peacetime defense needs (and this is worth doing), what really matters in a war is having the capacity to rapidly convert a substantial civilian manufacturing capability to military use. America can make the best military equipment on Earth right now, but how much of it could we make in some future large conventional war?

America should be especially attuned to this possibility, since manufacturing is how we won World War II so decisively. More than strategy, or righteousness, or bravery, or sacrifice, we won with factories. And they were not weapons factories. They were mundane manufactories of boring household goods: sewing machines, plumbing pipe, furniture, pleasure boats, automobiles, tractors, hosiery, toys, and toothpaste -- you name it. At the outbreak of war, they were then converted to make everything from rifles to oilcans to parachutes and cleaning kits.

Our boring factories provided our every need and much of our allies’ needs as well. We became the celebrated “Arsenal of Democracy.” The Axis was drowned under our converted manufacturing capacity. American citizens worked overtime and applied decades of experience to the wartime conversion. Patriotism and creativity was unleashed from the design bureaus through to the factory floors. Were we to need to do this today, could we make even a shadow of the effort we had in World War II?

Trade creates not just commodities and goods, but capacities and knowledge as well. These latter two items do not seem to figure prominently in any of the calculations of net good that are made regarding instant free trade with low wage nations. In a world in which all labor is an interchangeable commodity, the patriotic orientation of the laborers is not considered important. This is an oversight that might become painfully obvious to us one day, when we find that a factory that makes cheap plastic toys can also make cheap plastic mines -- but who these mines are made for will not be determined by open bid.

War is a constant of human behavior. America will be involved in another major war one day -- a fairly easy possibility to imagine currently. Iran’s population will surpass that of Russia within a generation. China is a nascent superpower very open about her ambitions in Asia. North Korea can field an army of millions tonight. A militaristic neo-Marxism grows in Latin America. The number of nuclear nations increases as never before -- eliminating the unilateral nuclear option America has long had as a panic button in the event of a worst-case conventional war.

If America had to fight -- really fight under a military draft with millions of men in a sustained war against a constellation of united enemies -- with what would we fight? There are many benefits to free trade. But we need to admit also that free trade, like all other philosophies, breaks down at the extremes and carries with it costs that cannot be readily determined by the short term self-interest of a business transaction. In the end, every nation needs to reserve to itself certain minimum capabilities as a form of insurance, and all nations need to remember that there are moments when the loyalties in a man’s heart are worth far more than any economic enticement. In war, there is no global labor market.

The above was an excerpt of the original internet posting on 2/28/07, modified only for length.
http://www.mindspring.com/~macjohnson/

« Close It

An example of this tactic was presented on December 6 when the Hudson Institute hosted a day-long conference on the "global character of the new defense industry." The think tank was up front about who was paying for this particular take on national security. The invitation stated that the event was "sponsored by the global aerospace and defense company Finmeccanica." Yet, this was still a bit misleading. While Finmeccanica seeks to operate on a global scale, it is very much a nationalistic Italian firm. A keynote speech was made by Pier Francesco Guarguaglini, Chairman and CEO of Finmeccanica. Additional speeches were given by Giovanni Castellaneta, Italy's Ambassador to the United States and Lt. Gen. Carmine Pollice, Vice Director of National Armaments for the Italian Ministry of Defense. And the identified target of the program was "legislation (‘Buy American' Acts) that limit Pentagon purchases of military equipment from non-U.S. manufacturers, particularly restrictions on military procurement from companies based in allied countries."

That an American think tank, especially one with Hudson's long pedigree on defense issues going back to its founder, renowned nuclear strategist Herman Kahn, would sell itself as a platform for a foreign corporation to attack aspects of U.S. policy is disturbing. Unfortunately, there were also plenty of Americans present to support "free trade " in defense systems. To a large extent, the six big American prime defense contractors have become assemblers ("system integrators") of components outsourced around the world. Their focus is on corporate planning, not on national requirements. It should never be forgotten – as it conveniently was at this conference, that the only reason the defense industry exists is to serve national requirements. The tone of the conference was that national policy should change to serve corporate interests.

Lockheed Martin apparently used its budding relationship with Hudson to open the door for Finmeccania's program. Lockheed Martin supplies avionics and propulsion gear to the Italian C-27J tactical cargo plane, whose manufacturer is vying for a 145-aircraft order to equip the U.S. Air Force and Army. Its main rival is the C-295 built by a French-German-Spanish alliance led by EADS. However, according to Defense News (Dec. 5, 2005), Lockheed Martin first became involved in the C-27J project as a defense “offset ” for its sale of C-130J aircraft to Italy.

The U.S. Interagency Offsets Steering Committee has defined offsets as "industrial compensation practices required as a condition of purchasing defense articles and services." Such offsets include mandatory co-production, licensed production, subcontractor production, technology transfer, counter trade, and foreign investment. The object is for the buyer to recoup as much as possible from the seller. According to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, which publishes an annual report on offsets, Italy received offsets equal to 93.8% of its purchases of U.S. military equipment over the period 1993-2004. The Italian government and its defense firms clearly do not follow the same "open" trading philosophy they want the United States to adopt. In 2005, Italy ran a $19.5 billion trade surplus with the United States, up from $17.4 billion in 2004. Italy is clearly not a victim of U.S. trade policy.

The most egregious example of an American firm giving cover to the foreign penetration of the U.S. defense industry is Northrup Grumman's role in promoting EADS against Boeing for the next generation of USAF refueling tankers. Northrup Grumman has been running ads in industry journals, but their early version gave the game away. A February ad opened with the claim that "for nearly a century Northrup Grumman has been creating and leveraging innovative technologies" but was now promoting "a cost-effective system based on EADS' commercially successful A330." The A330 is one of the Airbus models. The ads being run today have dropped any mention of EADS, though they continue to show the same artist conception of the A330 painted in USAF colors. It has become a true/false flag campaign. The Hudson conference morning session was on "obstacles to cooperation between allies on the research and development of new weapons and systems" though this quickly moved from R&D to the actual movement of production overseas. The afternoon session was focused on technology transfers and export controls, with an emphasis on needed "reforms" that would make it easier for foreign firms to get their hands on American technology.

There was very little real discussion, as Hudson earned its pay by stacking all the panels with globalists endorsing Finmeccanica's agenda. Still, occasionally something slipped out to warm the heart of an economic nationalist. Lisa Bronson, a professor at the National Defense University, argued that Defense Department acquisition culture is "not designed to share." It seeks the best weapon systems to meet American needs, and worries about "sharing" with allies only as an after thought. And this is a problem for whom? She also noted that European firms and governments were often more interested in gaining technology and a share of the production work, than in the performance of the military system in terms of mutual security.

One of the best speakers was not an American, but Gerald Howarth, a Member of Parliament who is also in the Conservative Party's shadow cabinet. As a Tory, he upheld that control of one's own defense industry and technical capabilities was a core attribute of sovereignty. He also acknowledged that with the UK spending only 2.3% of GDP on defense, and most of continental Europe spending not much more than 1% (compared to 4.5% of GDP in the United States), it was going to be difficult to maintain a European defense industry. Thus, European firms are looking to America to keep themselves in business.

Howarth noted that British Aerospace (BAE) already employs more people in the United States (38,000) than in the UK (32,000), and is the Pentagon's 6th largest supplier– but without acknowledging that it is "buy America" policies and preferences that have forced BAE to move facilities to the United States.

Policies that bolster such "in sourcing" by foreign firms should be strengthened, as they bring new capital and technology into the American economy, as opposed to "out sourcing" industrial capacity and future advances by importing goods from overseas. Many speakers noted that America does not have a monopoly on new ideas, but the aim of policy should be to capture ideas and add them to the U.S. industrial base.

Howarth argued that even though the UK cannot afford to maintain a full spectrum defense industry, it cannot just buy American weapons off the shelf because as a matter of sovereignty, it must keep certain critical industries protected at home. It must also gain full "sovereign" control over foreign technology embedded in the weapons it buys, as in the contentious case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being sold by Lockheed. This is true of every major nation, but especially for the United States if it wants to remain the world's leader.

One of Howarth's points was also made by Vago Muradian, editor of Defense News, the leading publication in the field. He asked, if the Europeans are not willing to fight, or maintain adequate military forces, why do they need a defense industry? And how can they be expected to keep up with new technology when the United States spends seven times as much on military R&D as does the European Union ? Given the collapse of defense spending in the EU, Lt. Gen. Pollice's claim that without a better trade balance with America, a self-reliant "fortress Europe" would emerge seems an empty threat.

But Muradian did not take the next step and ask why should the United States bail out European firms whose home markets have collapsed? And an even more important question needs to be considered. How can the United States risk allowing its defense systems to become dependent on European partners who may not be able to survive over time? Italy may be a close ally at the moment, having sent troops to Iraq, but the weapon systems American is buying today will be in service for 20, 30, or more years. It is impossible to foresee what changes may occur in the international environment over such a long period. All we know is that America will continue to need a strong military built on a secure economic base.

One of the worst speakers was John Douglass, head of the Aerospace Industries Association, whose leading members (such as Boeing) favor increased freedom to outsource research and production, so as to operate their defense sectors on the same hollow basis as their commercial sectors. He claimed that the new Democratic Congress would be "more enlightened" than the outgoing Republicans (at least in the House) about working with Europe!

The European model which many Democrats have embraced is one opposed to "unilateral" actions to protect American interests, that embraces the United Nations, and which cuts defense spending to the bone. Will Douglass still be happy if the new high-tech systems his member companies are developing are scrapped by a new Congressional majority favoring higher spending on urban poverty programs instead?

Douglass was proud that the U.S. exports 40% of its aerospace production, making it one of the very few sectors of American industry that runs a trade surplus. But he misses the fact that the objective of the Europeans is to reduce this surplus. The U.S.-based defense industry is a success story, providing the country with military capabilities that no one else on the planet can match, so why the desire to change it? Yet, Douglass proclaimed that the AIA was going to make "free trade" an issue in the 2008 election, and wanted the Europeans to work with AIA in making its case!

Robert H. Trice, Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin, made a positive contribution by being one of the few people to talk of the "800 pound gorilla in the room, China." He said that a major concern in Washington regarding American companies working with European partners is fear that technology would be passed through Europe to China. While it is important to share technology with allies in order to bolster American exports, there must be firewalls against further proliferation.

Italy is lobbying the European Union to lift the arms embargo on China, so it was not surprising that Stephen Bryen, President of Finmeccanica's U.S. affiliate, would proclaim that Beijing is not a threat. Finmeccanica is already very active in doing business in China that violates the spirit (if not the letter) of the EU ban. The ease with which corporate money can overcome concerns about national security is always disturbing. Bryen was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. He was responsible for technology security policy and worked to formulate national policies to protect U.S. military and commercial products, know-how and intellectual property. Now he works for foreign interests trying to undo all he had once honorably worked to build.

Another former official also spoke in favor of ignoring China. Suzanne Patrick served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Industrial Policy in President George W. Bush's first term. She argued that we should not treat China as an enemy, or we will turn Beijing into one. It is a good thing she left the Pentagon, since this year's Quadrennial Defense Review states, "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time off set traditional U.S. military advantages absent U.S. counter strategies....The pace and scope of China's military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk."

Just before Thanksgiving, a new spy story broke involving Beijing's attempts to steal U.S. military technology. It was reported that China obtained secret stealth technology used on the B-2 strategic bomber from a Hawaii-based spy ring headed by former defense contractor Noshir Gowadia. Meanwhile, AIA, the National Association of Manufacturers, and other globalized business groups are lobbying against attempts by the Commerce Department to tighten up security restrictions on trade with China.

A common theme of the globalist speakers was that policies meant to maintain a strong, domestic defense industry are Cold War relics. A number of speakers, including Douglass and Bryen, claimed that the only perils now were terrorists and perhaps a few backward rogue states. This is the view of a harmonious world that was popular in the 1990s, and which formed the setting for commercial globalization. Any realistic look around the world makes nonsense of this utopian concept. It is especially foolish when held by those in the defense industry. The reason America needs a defense industry to support a powerful military is because the world is not harmonious and stable. In the long run, the United States cannot outsource its security without putting its survival at risk.

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=2649

« Close It