By R. E. Smith Jr.

  It’s time for all of us to be required to carry health insurance, according to the social planners among us. Or as one newspaper editor put it, "Democrats…say it’s time for every American to be covered one way or another." He writes that if the government doesn’t mandate insurance for everyone, we’ll all "be out of luck." Luck has nothing to do with new schemes promoted by Democrat presidential candidates Mrs. Bill Clinton and Mr. John Edwards. It’s another effort to carry us farther along the road to socialism. Republican candidates may have bought into the "47 million uninsured" propaganda, but they prefer to let the market work on this presumed problem and manipulate the tax code to change behavior with "tax credits."

  One thing about socialists, they never give up. The 1993 Clinton administration plan promoted by Mrs. Clinton and the press, went down like a baby hit with the flu once people recognized it as socialized medicine. As Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein wrote, that plan "regulated health insurance companies so heavily that it virtually converted them into public utilities." The fact that we have "public utilities" and other mostly regulated businesses gives evidence that America is flirting (now in the heavy petting stage) with socialism.

  Brownstein and other press apparatchiks are smitten. He hopes that now is the time for universal health insurance to succeed because of Mrs. Clinton’s "carefully constructed new initiative."—more honestly stated: her attempts to dupe us by making it sound less oppressive.

  But this plan will lead to suppressing competition, a goal of collectivists. "Collectivism" is the term used for government economic planning to achieve the goal of distributing wealth. Fundamentally, collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Individual decisions and actions, operating in economic freedom, gave us American innovation and prosperity. Collectivists can’t tolerate that.

  Beware when they tell you they only want to make competition work better; it can only work free of collectivist planning. These planners want to displace competition with their power to approve or disapprove individual business decisions. No matter how rational and good it sounds that will be the result. Brownstein writes that one "choice" in the Clinton plan "would be a government-run competitor to private insurance." It will be the worst one—and lead to more government control.

  This will be the beginning of deteriorating health care, more government spending and higher taxes in America. The president of the trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, says: "It’s a whole new game…." To be sure. And we will be the pawns in this first step in the grand scheme to bring us more tightly under government regulation and distribute our wealth according to political decree.

I know. Some other wordsmith has used this clever play on words. I just can’t remember where it appeared. That’s why it’s parenthetic. Anyway, the point being to describe the dilemma we call the Iraq War or, as Democrats say, "Bush’s War." Despite the military change of strategy—which even critics must admit has shown some success in reducing the damage and chaos created by al-Qaeda and jihadists in parts of that unruly place—some believe we have not been successful, and even question the existence of an Iraq. Others see some hope.

Columnist George Will, whose intellect and insight I respect, wrote before General David Patraeus’ report to Congress that "the surge has failed" because President Bush had recently visited a place in Iraq other than Baghdad, indicating that the capital city was still unsafe. This may have been a hasty judgment, but it made sense at the time.

Bush and his general had defined success as buying time for Iraqi leaders to reconcile the factions bearing old grudges and hatreds, writes Will. He believes there are two "sinister aspects" to all of this: "measuring sectarian violence is problematic," the violent ones ebb and flow as sects dissipate and consolidate, and alliances formed to reduce the violence are probably only temporary: when al-Qaeda is dispatched and the factions again confront each other as ancient enemies. Not a very encouraging assessment.

Mr. Will leaves us with two persistent, and perturbing, questions: "Is there an Iraq?" and "Are there Iraqis?" Good questions.

My dictionary defines Iraq as "A country of SW Asia; site of a number of flourishing ancient Mesopotamian civilizations and independent since 1921." One must wonder what has happened to these cultures to create so much incivility (yes, I know, Democrats say Bush caused it); and would they be better off today if they had remained dependent on some civil society? But those are scholarly questions suited to a more lengthy discussion.

Iraq, with a population of about 23 million in 2001, is a republic with a president. In 1995 its principal exports were mostly crude oil and petroleum products. Ethnically the country was about 77 percent Arab and 19 percent Kurd in 2003. They speak Iraqi, a modern dialect of Arabic. Their flag, adopted in 1963, reveals more about who these people might be.

According to Webster’s International Atlas it is "based on the liberation flag first flown in Egypt in 1952." Equal sized bands of red, white and black make up the rectangular background: red for the "willingness to shed blood," white is for purity and the black represents "past suffering." Three green (representing Arab lands) stars that "express a desire to unite with Egypt and Syria" appear in the white center. Inscribed in Arabic between the stars: "God is Great."

The Iraqi flag sums up the fundamental cultural elements that represent decades of chaos and conflict in the entire Arab world: tolerance for violence; harboring old grudges; intolerance of other cultures; frustration over lack of Arab unity; and Islamic zealotry. This standard carries a lot of negative images.

James Pinkerton—another clear-thinking, reasoned columnist—outlines a three-part narrative on the Iraq War as it has evolved thus far. He says that we can take pride in our military regardless the success with our "crusade for democracy." They did what was asked of them—and then some. The second part of the story is that "the Iraqis have let us down." I fall into the camp of those who think that if the Iraqis don’t stop their violently hateful activities, they don’t deserve our help anymore. But maybe we’re pushing them hard to be something they’re not.

Pinkerton’s third part of the story tells us that "Iraq is not a viable country." It was artificially constructed by "Anglo-Saddam absurdity." It’s not a unified country. Why not let it diversify into partitions best suited to the factions that occupy the land? Senator Joe Biden has suggested a three-part partition between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. But Biden probably wanted our government to establish additional arbitrary lines.

What we want is irrelevant (maybe even counterproductive) to stability in that foreign land. Those people must decide where they will live; and how. However, reasonable people know that before settlement and commerce can happen violence must be stopped.

Fouad Ajami, author of "The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq," wrote a fascinating opinion piece in the September 10 issue of The Wall Street Journal. He describes meeting the young, charismatic tribal leader, Sheikh Abu Reisha of Anbar, who with American forces drove the al-Qaeda and its Arab jihadists out. Later they assassinated him. Again our military leaders corrected course on the ground to achieve success. Abu Reisha recalled that "Our American friends had not understood us when they came, they were proud, stubborn people," but he added, "so were we." He said they "worked with opportunists," then, they "turned to the tribes." Apparently, our troops learned that the "tribes hate religious parties and religious fakers," words spoken by Abu Reisha as reported by Mr. Ajami. He has hope.

Just before Gen. Petraeus’ report Ajami made a concise and, presumably, honest assessment. "Peace has not come to Iraq, the feuds have not fully burned out, but the center holds," he wrote. The center of what, some of us aren’t too sure. But then, as Sheikh Abu Reisha said, the "Americans were slow to understand our sahwa, our awakening. But they have come around of late. The Americans are innocent; they don’t know Iraq."

True, but we are capable of learning and acting wisely—if only we had the patience of our Arabs friends, and foes.

Recently, predictably, the press front-paged the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina with pictures and stories featuring New Orleans—mostly with tales about individuals with persisting problems: primarily bemoaning government bureaucracy, depressing conditions and lack of ready cash. To be fair, one article in The Philadelphia Inquirer gave hints of "hope in a region haunted by memories."

It’s haunting, too, that we haven’t seen much written accounting for the billions of public dollars that have poured into that pumped-out Lake Woebegone and how funds from the federal pipeline are being spent or, more probably, misspent.

While reading an Associated Press article reporting Census Bureau estimates that the poverty rate dropped a tad—also front page, but much less prominent—I wondered. Is there a connection? Did the poverty rate drop because of all the taxpayer money that has been sent to the Gulf Coast? I don’t have any figures to show a relationship and the short AP story gave no breakdown of statistics, but a case might be made. There’s another reason to suspect that Katrina helped reduce poverty.

In July 2005, the month before Katrina, the population of Orleans Parish was nearly 455,000. Apparently only 60 percent returned because in July 2007 the population was less than 274, 000. Most of those who returned are rebuilding; probably with federal funding, which, I assume, is reportable income. And could it be that those who didn’t return found work and got out of poverty? One can only speculate.

Typically, little actual work sustains a poor family in America: only about 16 hours each week. With one adult working 40 hours weekly, "nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty," according to the Heritage Foundation.

Many poor New Orleans residents were probably single mothers subsisting on government welfare (Heritage Foundation figures show that two-thirds of children classified as poor live with a single parent). Just after the hurricane someone at the Washington Post wrote, "hundreds of thousands of people displaced by Hurricane Katrina seem to be disappearing…." AP statistics showed that public school enrollment in February 2007 was only 40 percent of that in the fall of 2004. Apparently, many families with children did not return. Could they be better off now?

Conditions change along the Gulf Coast. Over in Mississippi, another AP story about planners wanting to reinvent the "Redneck Riviera" with "New Urbanism" claims that federal funds have flowed slow to cities in that state. Maybe Democrats have stalled cash flow to Mississippi because it had a Republican governor. Or, could it be that Mississippians are more self-sufficient than…what are people from New Orleans called: New Orleanians or New Orleanders?

Speaking of politics and Democrats, the AP poverty-story reporter called the poverty dip good economic news, but couldn’t resist dragging in the obligatory bad news about 47 million "Americans without health insurance." Congressman Charles Rangel, D-New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (named for the ways they have to tax us that give them the means to spend), got into this story. He used the occasion of the Census report to justify more government insurance programs, and croaked out the tired refrain: Bush policies favoring the rich have dug "a deep hole" for the poor.

The poor dig their own holes, Charley. And you want the government to give them shovels. Heritage Foundation figures show that we have 1.5 million out-of-wedlock births each year. Children with resident working fathers do not live in poverty. If poor mothers married, most of their children would "immediately be lifted out of poverty." But that would not be good news for those champions of dependency: Big Welfare and Democrats.

The House and Senate have passed bills to "dramatically increase spending for ‘Children’s Health Insurance.’" The latest figures that show 15.8 percent of Americans "without insurance" give liberals justification for increasing taxes and incrementally moving us toward socialized health care. Yet stories analyzing this figure and identifying the 47 million have-nots rarely show in the print press. At the end of the AP poverty story, a short paragraph explains part of the lack-of-insurance distortion.

"The income group with the most people losing insurance was households making $75,000 or more a year, showing that the issue is not limited to the poor."

Thanks to Associated Press reporter Stephen Ohlemacher for a tidbit of truth about this. But we need much more to counter the warped views to promote government programs that support poverty—those counterproductive to the solutions: they being marriage and work.

Recently I received an elegant little booklet published by the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Scholars at this private, non-profit organization dedicate themselves to improving higher education by helping educators and the public understand the failings of our universities and colleges, and how they might be corrected.

The cover of the booklet titled, "From Christian Gentleman to Bewildered Seeker," shows a young man dressed in coat and tie, seated on a porch. Beyond, a pastoral scene evokes quietude and contemplation. He holds a closed book in his lap and gazes thoughtfully outward. The sepia picture caption reads, "His thoughts dwelt upon serious things."

The young man pictured, nostalgically, reminds me of my maternal grandfather Samuel Stark. He looks surprisingly like pictures we have of my grandfather. This poignant memory and the essay by Russell K. Nieli sadly reminds me of how far our universities have fallen from their proud tradition and how they fail our young people who enter the halls with false expectations. It’s no exaggeration to say this institutional transformation has left a great intellectual void in our culture.

Dr. Nieli describes the historic foundations upon which our once great universities rested with "clear purpose, focus and coherence." Founded largely by Protestant Christian clergy, their goal was to "pass on the moral, intellectual and religious heritage of Christianity and Greco-Roman high culture to generations of the nation’s youth." Now they crumble under the self-imposed baggage of "alienating irrelevance."

I vividly remember my grandpa Stark, a thin, zesty man with a sense of humor. But infused in that old man was classic education. He and his father had both graduated from Wyoming Seminary in Kingston, Pennsylvania, a college prepatory school. The Seminary was founded in 1844 by Methodist Church leaders "to prepare students…for a course of professional or collegiate studies."

Sam Stark graduated from the Seminary in 1898 and went on to Ohio State University where, I remember mother saying, he "studied Greek and Latin," and played football. Family legend has it that grandpa Stark was a bit of playboy for those times. But he was solidly educated. In retirement he served as librarian in a small schoolhouse in Uniondale, Pennsylvania a little village about 20 miles north of Scranton. He gave me the first books I remember having before formal school.

Dr. Nieli’s essay reminds me also of my own experiences in higher education during the 1950s. I was part of the rapidly expanding student population encouraged by the G. I. Bill. I had served nearly three years in the U. S. Army and, thus, was able to afford college with this federal assist. I enrolled at the New York State College of Forestry located adjacent to the Syracuse University campus.

We were simultaneously matriculated at both institutions. The College of Forestry provided the technical courses—what we called applied sciences—in our chosen options. Syracuse University (founded in 1870 by Methodist clergy) contracted with the state to offer courses required in English, physical sciences and mathematics. The College rigidly required that each student follow a "core" curriculum of required courses. Until our senior year it was rare that we could take electives.

Although I wasn’t aware of it then, a great controversy about the mission and delivery of higher education had been raging between academic intellectuals for decades. A Harvard College report in 1945 defined what its faculty saw as a challenge: a "proliferation of courses and the expansion in student choice." Thus, they concluded, students seeking a liberal education had no clear, coherent path.

In the late 60s radical changes caused tumult at the academy. I was a college professor during those trying years. Even at our small, rural college dissident students began to pressure the administration to back off from faculty expectations of order in the classroom and self-disciplined study. Increasingly, students ill-prepared for college work were admitted. In frustration they rebelled at the hard work of learning. Anxious to add student bodies (and funding) our state university enabled these students by offering entry with "remedial" studies in English and math. Nieli writes that we professors were reduced to "servants of immature youths and their fickle minds."

All this and the failure to require a set of fundamental classic courses for undergraduates destroyed the integrity of higher education. The "whatever" mentality filtered into secondary schools. Author and former secretary of education William Bennett summed up this subverting phenomenon: "(O)nce colleges and universities decided the curriculum did not have to represent a vision of an educated person, the secondary schools and their students took the cue and reached the same conclusion."

Sadly, Dr. Nieli concludes his essay by stating that there is probably no way out of this now firmly entrenched academic dilemma: that so-called educated people do not know "what is worth knowing and what is important in our heritage." But, he says, compromises are possible and "the extreme curriculum incoherence and fragmentation that plagues most of our major universities today" may be alterable.

This booklet is worthwhile reading for all those interested in the history of higher education in America, and how our modern institutions bewilder and fail students trusting they will be shown the way to elevated understanding.