The only way to judge whether someone knows what they're talking about is to look at what they actually said.

There are two things I really hate about political commentators.

The first is a tendency by many on the Left, and a few on the Right, to write the same article over and over.  "Why Iraq was a Mistake" is followed by "The Mistakes of the Iraq War," which is followed by "The failure of U.S. Policy in Iraq," which is succeeded by "Iraq Policy Mistakes." 

We got it the first time.  You don't think we should have invaded Iraq.  So, what's your policy prescription for going forward?  "Not Invading Iraq in the First Place," is not an answer, any more than "Invading Iraq Made the US Look Bad in the eyes of the Germans, French, Iranians, Russians and Chinese" is an answer.  

It's okay to have an agenda that informs your commentary.  It's not okay to have that agenda be your commentary.  This applies equally to those who write an endless series of one-note articles on the same subject matter, as well as to those armchair analysts who comment on others' writings.  While there are indeed common themes that run throughout a coherent analytical essay (a focus on liberty, freedom, respect for the Constitution, etc.), not every subject requires one to bring up U.S. "atrocities" at GITMO, as one example.  Once again, believing something strongly is not the same thing as analyzing the subject under discussion, any more than relating every discussion on U.S. foreign policy to "torture" is a real response to that issue.

My second bugaboo about political commentators deals with accountability.  Why should I continue to listen to someone in 2009 who was consistently wrong in everything he/she said over the past several years?  And when they were wrong, was it about a discrete issue (the US or Israel will/won't attack Iran in month X), or a larger trend (the American public believes X)?  One good storm can affect the outcome of a given election, but an identifiable political trend doesn't turn on a dime.  

No one is ever right 100% of the time.  The question is, what exactly were they wrong about — and why — and will they acknowledge or ignore it?  I was firmly convinced in August 2008 that McCain, despite his shortcomings, would beat Obama, and I laid those reasons out in an essay.  None of them had to do with opinion polls, but instead focused on political trends and observations.  By early October — thanks to the economic meltdown, and McCain's "me too" chorus by joining Obama's focus on U.S. business as the root of all evil while excusing the government from any responsibility — it was just as clear that McCain was going to lose, and I wrote about that also.  I try not to let my wishes influence my analysis, so when something looks positive I write about it positively, and when the trend turns negative I acknowledge the negativity.  This is the only way I know of to maintain credibility, and let the discussion turn to the facts on the table rather than the wishes of the commentator/author.

Which brings me to the subject of this essay.  I've long argued that what someone writes about political concepts or trends in 2006 should be just as relevant in 2009, if that analysis is to have any credibility.  I'm not talking about election predictions here, which are singular points on the political landscape, but rather about the landscape itself.  If I believe that X is an important factor in analyzing or understanding an issue, what I say one, three or five-plus years ago about that subject should be just as relevant today as it was then.  Only the specific details of that time period used to express the thought should change, not the thought itself.

So, in the spirit of accepting my own challenge, here is what I wrote about certain subjects several years ago.  I'm willing to put them to the same test today that I did then, and see if the commentary has any real credibility.

Enough time has already passed on some of these subjects to allow for a judgment. Others are just beginning to reach the boiling point, and that judgment may still be a few months or years away.  But rather than write a new essay on the same subject matter I addressed before, I've resurrected my original analysis and will let that stand in the face of today's events.

1. Congress, the automobile industry, and environmental regulations

"According to the True Believers on the Left, any car bigger than an electric golf cart, or one that doesn't use solar power as its primary source of locomotion, is morally indefensible because it's killing the environment.  The fact that such a vehicle doesn't actually exist because Dick Cheney and his evil Oil Industry buddies want to raise the earth's temperature by forcing us all to drive gasoline-powered monstrosities, doesn't make this issue go away.  It simply requires us to choose the lesser of all evils and buy that Yugo instead of opting for a larger, heavier, and dare I say, more comfortable car.  One day, when the Democrats return to their rightful place of power in Washington, "Option B" will disappear all together.  New legislation will outlaw these gas-guzzlers and require U.S. automakers who are fighting for their economic survival to pump billions of dollars of R&D into creating a solar-powered Myth Mobile.  This will end pollution and eliminate global warming, and make the U.S. a more eco-friendly, but poorer nation."

August 25, 2006 http://intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/ 

2. It's not getting any warmer, but the Left still insists on radical Global Warming legislation that involves new (international) institutions.

"If global warming is only a theoretical concern, and not a concrete, existing problem, then there is no reason to make new policy and/or divert current resources to this crisis.  Thus, it must be an existing problem that is significant, and growing, or other competing problems will take center stage. Moreover, the solution to this existing, significant, and growing problem must involve a restructuring or redirection of society's resources.  If existing policies, processes and/or institutions can take care of the problem, there is no need for an outside entity to lead the effort or participate in any meaningful way.  Thus, the solution must, by definition, demand a 'new way' of doing business, led by individuals who are closely attuned to the unique new dynamics surrounding that issue.  In short, their view must be that the very nature of the problem, as well as the unique features of its solution, requires individuals like them to play strong central roles.

"If the facts at hand don't conform to this scenario, then they must be massaged, distorted, or disregarded all together in order to preserve, protect, or expand their power . . . [Moreover], if Big Oil, supported by mainstream Republicans and other ROWG's (rich old white guys) embrace their ideas, then there is either something intrinsically wrong with their proposals – or worse, their peers will conclude that they've compromised their principles and joined the enemy.  Big Oil, Republicans, and ROWG's are the problem.  Bringing them down as they save the environment will not only enhance these activists' power, it will elevate their personal prestige within the only group that matters: their fellow Left-wing radicals, and the Hollywood groupies who hang on their every word.

". . . For those who seek power and prestige but have not yet attained it, money becomes the driving force in shaping their message.  To illustrate this point by borrowing from the political arena, if a group arises in opposition to the policies of President Bush, it will not serve its own best interests by conceding major points in that debate even if the evidence is overwhelming.  The Bush tax cut policy has swelled the public coffers beyond even the most optimistic projections, just as the Administration said it would.  Organizations formed in opposition to Bush cannot concede this point, or they will alienate the red meat radicals who viscerally hate the President and will tolerate no praise for him whatsoever. Their funds will then go to another competing group that remains true to the message that everything Bush does is corrupt, incompetent, or stupid, and they'll be left panhandling for dollars to pay the light bill."

July 31, 2006 http://intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/ 

3. The Obama Administration overtures toward Al Quada, the Taliban, GITMO prisoners and Iran

"I thought that 'Iraq as Vietnam' was simply a convenient metaphor employed by the Left to rally support against Bush's Middle East policy.  It turns out I was wrong.  I'm convinced that the main reason we lost on November 7 [2006] – I say 'we,' because I think it was the country, not just Republicans, who suffered a defeat – is that the anti-Bush voters really believed what was expressed by Nancy Pelosi.  The battle between the West and Islamo-Fascism is just another political and social dispute.  Thirty years after we declare victory and leave Iraq (and Al Quada moves in to pick up the pieces), we'll be trading with them just like we are with Vietnam today. 

"This is patently absurd.  These people aren't just socially and ideologically opposed to Republican Party politics; they are sworn enemies of all things Western on a holy mission from God to convert or behead their opponents.  There isn't any room for compromise here.  The only choices for either side is victory or defeat. 

"But this isn't the way Nancy and the gang see it.  The product of a culture that embraces all things diverse and instinctively seeks mediation over conflict, they are convinced that these jihadists aren't all that different from us.  If we can just sit down with them over a cup of coffee (er, I mean, some drink without caffeine or alcohol or anything else prohibited by God) and talk things over, they'll see that we mean them no harm.  We understand that Osama was provoked into sending those planes into the World Trade Center because Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, who like them only wants to make the world safe from Global Warming. 

"We're all reasonable people, this thought process goes, and reasonable people will find a reasonable way to reasonably compromise.  Like our school systems have taught us, through dialogue and understanding the other person's point of view, we'll find a way to deal with those pesky issues (like the existence of Israel) that complicate our Middle East relations, and in doing so make the world a more peaceful place for all of us 

". . . The Democrat Party refused to state what they actually would do once in power, other than to say they wouldn't do it the way it was done by Bush.  The closest thing I ever heard to a policy pronouncement came from Howard Dean about a year ago.  If only the US wasn't so bellicose and disrespectful of Arab sensibilities, we would have avoided the need for military action at all.

". . . I just hope that the Democrats who gained power in the last election understand how the world really works, despite their rhetoric pandering to their base.  If not, instead of two years of endless hearings about supposed Republican corruption, we're likely to be treated to different kinds of news stories that focus on body counts.  Not of U.S. military personnel, but American citizens abroad and at home who will re-learn the lessons of history the hard way."

November 10, 2006 http://intellectualconservative.com/2006/11/10/why-we-lost/ 

4.  A nuclear Iran

"Had the Left not succeeded in the 2006 mid-term elections, I thought that Bush would have gone ahead and acted (with or without the Israelis) to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat.  If you're going to be condemned either way for acting or not acting, then you might as well act.

"But now that the Dems have taken over both Houses in Congress, I'm not so sure.  Bush won't pull out of Iraq, that much I'm certain of.  But it's less likely now that he'll expand any action to remove other threats.  With the first movement against Iran, Syria or Korea, he would be impeached – and convicted – with unprecedented haste by the Democrat majorities in both Houses.

"But the yin-yang of political life also tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so we're left with an interesting situation.  Iran will go nuclear, and as a nuclear power, it will not simply stockpile nuclear weapons and wage conventional war.  Just as the logic of the early centuries of Christianity made the Crusades inevitable, so the logic of Islam at a roughly contiguous point in its history makes the logic of jihad inevitable. Iran will use all its resources to fulfill its holy mission just as the Crusaders used theirs. But King Richard didn't possess nuclear weapons to smite his enemies and please his God, and therein lies an important difference.

So what is Bush to do now in face of present realities?  If he tries to act and remove a threat, he'll be removed himself.  Moreover, the threat will remain, and be emboldened.  If he doesn't act, at some point we'll lose New York and Washington, and perhaps LA too if the terrorists really want to show their prowess. History will then crucify Bush for inaction.  Or maybe not, which brings us to the self-correcting mechanism I spoke about earlier as historians look back on the Bush administration.

"Consider the yang to this yin.  If we wait for the mushroom cloud as 'proof positive' of Iran's hostile intentions before we act, two things will happen. 

(1)  We'll all have another 9/11-like Kumbaya moment and the U.S. will retaliate with full force to completely eliminate the problem (including some "collateral damage" in adjoining areas of the world that need to be taken care of too).  No more terrorist threats from Iran, Syria, the mountains of Pakistan, and North Korea just for good measure.  After all, if you're going to nuke one enemy, why not nuke them all?  Sure Russia and China will get mad, but they're not going to launch against us because we took out 'Lil Kim.  We'll pay reparations to the radiation victims along their borders and offer some additional foreign aid.  Then Putin can go back to poisoning his enemies, and China can go back to stealing our military secrets and planning to invade Taiwan, and all will be well with the world.

(2)  And, since the terrorist blast against New York and Washington will undoubtedly vaporize all the liberals/Democrats/press who congregate along the East Coast, there won't be anyone of any consequence left alive to start tearing down Bush (and with him, U.S. national security) for their own personal political gain.  It will also, shall we say, diminish the influence of certain academic elites who also live/lived there and go up in the same mushroom cloud.  Without their wisdom and the cheerleading from the liberal press that goes along with it, that particular point of view will be rather severely diminished.

"Yes I know this is a perfectly horrible thing to say and I'm a perfectly horrible person for saying it.  But then again, I don't live in New York, Washington or LA, and I haven't made a history of simultaneously condemning Bush for acting and not acting on the same issue.  These numbskulls are in the most logical blast zone, yet their hatred for Bush is so compelling they'd rather ignore a real, tangible threat to their lives than support Bush's efforts to obviate it, for fear that any Bush 'success' would elevate him in the history books.

"So let the chips fall where they may.  If they're right, and Bush created terrorism, then he should be stopped from provoking peaceful Iran, Syria, and Korea (not to mention the greatest non-threat of all, Al Quada).  If I'm right, and these thugs pose very real threats to our national security, then when the next attack comes I at least have the comfort of knowing that I'm not living in the most likely target area.  I'll continue to write my essays, while Dan & Katie, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and Nancy and the gang will have considerably less to say on the subject."

December 15, 2006 http://intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/15/a-self-correcting-mechanism/ 

5.  The Loss of Europe

"What the Euro-weenies and American Left have yet to realize is that an Infidel is an Infidel, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.  If you don't believe in Allah, and/or you don't practice the right kind of Islamic faith, you have a target on your back.  Expressing sympathy and understanding for freedom-fighting Islamo-fascists may move you to the back of the execution parade, but not always as the late Mr. Johnson recently discovered.  And even if you survive the first few rounds of bloodletting, eventually your float makes its way down the reviewing line, so in the end the outcome is destined to be the same.

"My one hope for Europe has always been Great Britain, which has steadfastly bucked 'conventional wisdom' by bucking the trend of a trans-national currency and keeping the Pound, and fighting the bad guys wherever they are.  But then recently a group of British Royal Marines and sailors were taken captive by the Iranians and subjected to all sorts of unspeakable tortures, causing them to break down almost immediately and make propaganda statements for their captors.  Some of these tortures included calling one sailor 'Mr. Bean' for his uncanny resemblance to the British comedian.  This made the man cry himself to sleep every night because of the humiliation . . .

"No wonder these prisoners gave in so quickly!  One can only imagine how John McCain, Sam Johnson and the other Vietnam U.S. Prisoners of War would have held up under such pressure.  They faced nothing as diabolical as this.  Instead, they broke only after weeks and months of near starvation, and having the living hell beaten out of them.

Rather than condemn the behavior of their captured military, many in the British government and press have applauded their actions.  Lives were spared (I mean, no one is supposed to be injured in a war zone), and the restrained actions of the British government – combined with the captives' sincere-sounding, heart-felt apologies – contributed to the quick release of the prisoners.

"Surrender usually does, so maybe I'm missing the point here.  But I think not.  Though no student of history, I've seen enough on the History Channel to be reminded of the fall of Rome, whose rot started from within.  By the time the barbarian hordes were at its gates, the citizens of that failed civilization had no stomach to fight, for there was nothing left worth fighting for.

"Europe is at a similar crossroads.  In many respects, that point may have long since passed.  Mainland Europe sees very little worth fighting for in defense of its own interests.  Accommodation and conciliation are their current weapons of choice, as the Spanish more than clearly demonstrated by their last election.  It's only a matter of time until numbers alone (i.e. the fast growing Muslim population) overwhelms and swallows them all. 

"Like the Borg attacking in a Star Trek episode, resistance is futile because the people of mainland Europe believe it is futile to resist.  Now, that same poison has infested the soul of Great Britain.  When soldiers in a combat zone refuse to repel an attack because, as one sailor put it, they were outnumbered, I think back to other great moments in British history when soldiers fought for King and Country, instead of the right to sell their story to the highest tabloid bidder.

"It's the 1930s all over again. Europe appears lost in the face of a growing, obvious threat.  The only question left is, is America next?"

April 18, 2007  http://intellectualconservative.com/2007/04/18/watching-western-civilization-implode/