F.o.B. Ted sends along a link to this review of Robert Spencer’s new book, Stealth Jihad.

Mark Steyn has a brilliant little post over at The Corner in response to an observation that politically correct fluff has crowded real history out of school curricula.

He was responding to this.

Here are a few loose thoughts that have been bouncing around in my enormous head over the last couple of weeks.

Most everyone seems to believe that this election represents some sort of seismic shift . . . the end of one era and the beginning of a new, and very different one. But what, precisely, have we shifted to? What just happened?

You’ll be relieved to learn, I’ve got it all figured out.

Thread 1:  Many of the publications I read have been talking for a couple of years now about how we have entered an age in which “design” is supreme. Consumers have begune to demand that everything they own and  use not only be functional but also beautiful, or even better, “cool.”

In fact, if forced to choose, most people will pick cool design over plain but superior functionality. Why? Because . . .

Thread 2:  Today it’s all about image.

Sure, human beings have always been image conscious. But today image is cultivated and preserved the way previous generations obsessed over their reputations. In fact, image has replaced reputation as the single most treasured aspect of identity.

This is the rocket fuel feeding the countless hours spent on Facebook and its business-suit wearing cousin, LinkedIn, each day. It’s why I want an iPhone, and why my kids want me to have one, too. It will make me a cooler dad and having a cooler dad has positive spill-over effects on their images.

Thread 3:  The hatred for George Bush by the movers and groovers of the popular culture over the last eight years defies logic or reason. The only way to understand Bush Derangement Syndrome is to recognize that President Bush was very uncool and made image-obsessed cool-kids in New York and L.A. feel a lot like my teenage daughters would feel if I showed up at their school wearing short-shorts, black knee-high dress socks with sandals, and one of those gigantic Nerf foam cowboy hats.

This is why Mr. Bush has been particularly loathsome to the Hollywood crowd. To a group of people who view the world entirely through the lens of popularity, a President who makes America unpopular in places like Cannes, London, and Barcelona has committed the unpardonable sin.

Thread Synthesis: In a era in which design and image are prized above all other qualities or virtues, the Democrats fielded the coolest candidate ever. Yes, Senator Obama won because he was cool, and because he was black, and because it’s cool to be black.

Google the terms “Obama” and “cool” and you’ll get more than 55 million hits. Near the top is this article in the serious and respected publication, The New Republic: “Cool We Can Believe In.” An excerpt:

His political narrative is not the fictional happenstance that placed Douglass Dilman into the Oval Office in Irving Wallace’s The Man and cast Chris Rock into the Blockbuster bargain bin in Head of State. Barack has more going for him than good timing, the proper complexion, and the appearance of marital fidelity. He’s got cool, and cool is the ultimate transcendent.

Meanwhile, John McCain was to cool whatever anti-matter is to matter. To make matters worse, McCain was trapped in a no-win situation. To counter the meme that he was too old, cranky and frail to be president, he was always trying to look all energetic and excited. But the hyper version of McCain was just creepy and weird.

The Mr. Positive-Energy version of McCain could suck all the cool out of a room in less than seven seconds.

It’s sad, but true. Coolness quotient may indeed have been the determining factor in the last four or five presidential elections. You have to go all the way back to Nixon’s landslide defeat of McGovern to find an election in which the argurably less-cool candidate won. Of course, in some elections, it’s not a matter of who has more cool but rather who is less of a dork.  (In 2004, John Kerry’s over-the-top attempts at looking cool–being photographed windsurfing, snowboarding, saluting at the convention, etc–turned him into the biggest dork ever.)

At this moment, conservatives and Republicans (not always the same thing) are having weighty, cerebral debates about how win back the hearts and minds of the electorate. But I don’t think I’ve heard any discussion of how to get cooler. Not “hipper.” Cooler.

This is essentially what has brought the Tories in Great Britain back from the edge of extinction. Though both far from pristine in their conservatism, Tory leader David Cameron and London’s new mayor, Boris Johnson, both give off a fairly cool vibe.

It would be great if American elections were won or lost solely on the soundness of each party’s ideas. But, clearly, they’re not. And our entry into the age of design and image is complete.

The question is not “Who is right?” It is “Who enhances my image?”

Update:

I forgot the mention the news item that sparked this whole train-wreck of thought . . .

In the New York Times magazine today, an article gives us a glimpse of the moment back in December of 2006 in which Barack Obama decided he wanted to be President of the United States. He was in an intense discussion about his prospects when his wife, Michelle asked a pointed question:

Why do you want to do this?” she said directly. “What are hoping to uniquely accomplish, Barack?”

Obama sat quietly for a moment, and everyone waited. “This I know: When I raise my hand and take that oath of office, I think the world will look at us differently,” he said. “And millions of kids across this country will look at themselves differently.”

There it is. Do you see it?  . . . Image.

The founding rationale for this presidency was improving America’s image in the world, and the self-images of “millions of kids.”

I can certainly think of less noble rationales for seeking power.  Financial gain, ego gratification, and whatever it was animating Bill Clinton’s ambition, to name a few.

But in these volatile and fierce times, I would find it more comforting if my new president had a stronger mission than to simply make us look good.

James Lileks nominates a few more phrases for retirement here. They include:

“I loves me some ______ .”

Internet comments that begin with “Ummmm … ”

“Not so much . . .”

“FAIL”

Some recommended reading here on Veteran’s Day . . . My friend Stephen Mansfield’s beautiful little gift book:

Also, why not donate $48 dollars to one of these soldiers’ assistance organizations in recognition of the 48% of voters who chose a old soldier for Commander-in-Chief over an inexperienced lefty lawyer.

Soldiers’ Angels

Fisher House

That’s right. “Garden” and “Gun.”

This magazine appears to have been around for a while, but I never knew of its existence until I came across it on the rack at Borders yesterday. It’s awesome. In the issue above, you’ve got ads for heirloom shotguns, the cover story about amazing southern food, an article about a guy with 7,000 turkey calls, some artsy stuff, and a Roy Blount, Jr. essay on the joys of chopping firewood–all beautifully designed and printed on thick velvety paper.

It’s sort of like Vogue for bird dog owners.  Check out the web site. 

By the way, I’m think I’m going to have to start eating my way through this list.

The Bush Administration had Congressional approval to build a fence along strategic portions of the border with Mexico. But it drug its heels, piddled around, and got virtually nothing done. Now it’s out of time. Of course, it was clear from the beginning that the President’s heart wasn’t really in it.

So what do we hear this week?

The Mexican army on Friday announced that it has made the largest seizure of drug-cartel weapons in Mexico’s history.

The cache of 540 rifles, 165 grenades, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and 14 sticks of TNT were seized on Thursday at a house in the city of Reynosa, across the border from McAllen, Texas, Mexican Assistant Attorney General Marisela Morales said.

“The seizure … is the largest in the history of Mexico involving organized crime,” Morales told reporters at Defense Department headquarters, where the army displayed hundreds of rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and laid out rows of grenades and crates of ammunition.

This arsenal was discovered just a couple of miles south of McAllen, Texas in the Mexican town of Reynosa.

The fact is, swaths of northern Mexico are now under the control of the drug cartels and the corruption-riddled Mexican government and Army are losing the battle to oust them.

Of course, it would be profoundly troubling if there were evidence that the Mexican drug cartels were cooperating with Islamic terrorist groups. Well . . .

Washington Times: “Terrorists Teaming With Drug Cartels”

Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.

Have a nice day!

 Some researchers at Oxford came up with a list of what they consider to be the irritatingly overused phrases. Their top ten?

1 – At the end of the day
2 – Fairly unique
3 – I personally
4 – At this moment in time
5 – With all due respect
6 – Absolutely
7 – It’s a nightmare
8 – Shouldn’t of
9 – 24/7
10 – It’s not rocket science

These phrases are indeed tired and worn slick. But I can think of several that are much more “irritating.”  Off the top of my head, there’s:

“License and registration please.”

“Does that itch?”

“Ms. Winfrey is here to see you.”

“Yes, I’m going to finish my fries.”

“Is this your dog?”

Any suggestions of your own, dear readers?

I just posted my first ever “Reader’s Poll” over at my Chris Matthews’ Leg blog.  Help me out and go over there and vote.

The outcome of the election was not a surprise. A Dem win by either Senator Clinton or Obama became a near fait accompli the moment McCain clinched the nomination in a year in which the economy was the dominant issue for the electorate. The real shocker would have been a McCain upset.

But like many other people who place a high value on limited government, the sanctity of human life, America’s special relationship with Israel, and the need to remain on offense in the war on terror–the results left me feeling a mixture of anger, disappointment and sadness.

Anger  . . . at what has derisively come to be known as “the mainstream media,” as most journalists and journalistic institutions self-consciously abandoned all professional standards and all pretense of objectivity and transformed themselves into an unregulated arm of the Obama campaign.

For example, by August 7, Sen. Obama’s face had been on the cover of Time seven times–and with equally ridiculous frequency on Newsweek as well. The week before the election, a smiling Sen. Obama–the smoker–graced the cover of Men’s Health. That’s right. Men’s “Health.”

(By the way, have you seen a single press photograph of President-elect Obama smoking during the stressful campaign? Will the press scrupulously avoid publishing any photos of the President smoking in the same way they complied with FDR’s request that he not be shown in his wheelchair? And will there be ashtrays in the Oval Office–sporting the presidential seal? Can I have one?)

This morning, Chris Matthews told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that he felt it his responsibility as a broadcaster to help make the Obama presidency a success. Seriously. For eight years we’ve been told by Matthews and others that it was the press’ job to be adversarial to the White House to keep it honest. Now it’s suddenly its job to be a loyal part of the team? That’s some serious “change.”

Today, AM talk radio is the only mass media vehicle on which conservative voices can still be heard outside the editorial pages of a few local newspapers. If, as expected, the Pelosi-Reid-Obama government reeinstates the fairness doctrine and effectively muzzles that channel, we will have a situation in this country that is truly dangerous for democracy.

Disappointment . . . that my party couldn’t find a way to nominate a stronger, more conservative candidate for the most important political office in the world. There is much to admire about John McCain the man, but as long-time readers of the blog know, I’ve never been a fan of McCain the politician or crafter of public policy. The fact is, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and Bush 41 weren’t the best picks either, though, again, there is much to admire about each man. You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to find the Republican Party nominating the right man at the right time.

And there is also disappointment in the small but highly visible number of conservatives and libertarians who constructed contorted rationalizations for supporting Senator Obama’s candidacy.

Sadness . . . that I was robbed of the exciting opportunity to cast a vote for the first black President of the United States because the first African-American nominee of a major party was unfit for the office by virtue of inexperience and ideology. That would have been fun. If America was truly hungry for a wise philosopher-king with dark skin, it should have found a way to draft Thomas Sowell.

I get the pride and thrill that people of all races are feeling about the passing of this milestone. And I understand how powerful the pull of “identification” was for black evangelical Christians. Just look at how excited we Christians get when we find out that some celebrity or sports star is a believer.

But isn’t voting for a African-American man that you would clearly have vigorously voted against if he were white, a blatantly racist act? Isn’t this a variant of “the soft racism of low expectations?”

***

Chris Matthews is clearly wrong in thinking it is his job as a journalist to work for the success of the Obama presidency. But it is my duty as a believer to pray for President Obama, and I already am.

As a person who loves this country mightily, I’ll entreat the God of heaven that President Obama will operate in wisdom, steer the ship of state well in these dangerous waters, and find the will to resist the pull of the forces that dominate his political party.

Because when the most liberal Congress in 30 years starts flooding his desk with legislation, he’ll have to either sign the bills or veto them.

Voting “present” is no longer an option.