Of course, the same could be said of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Usama bin Laden and various other mass murderers of recent history. Nevertheless, the attempt was to explain away Hasan’s actions as pathological and thus avoid dealing with, or even – to the degree possible – mentioning the ideology to which his neuroses adhere (hint: it begins with an “I”).

This strategy is a form of what is popularly known as political correctness, which I submit is also a pathology and a quite virulent one – in this case, arguably the cause of death of the thirteen men and women murdered at Fort Hood.

As a reminder, political correctness is derived from the more intellectually respectable doctrine of cultural relativism (it’s sort of CR’s public “happy face”). In essence, cultural relativism holds that an individual’s beliefs and activities should only be understood in terms of his or her own culture. It’s the ultimate version of “who are we to the judge?” If Ayatollah Khomeini wishes to oppress all the women and homosexuals in Iran, it’s their way. If Mao seeks to knock off seventy million of his countrymen, so be it. Let the Chinese decide. We shouldn’t impose our values.

On our increasingly tiny globe, this theory – when spelled out – is nothing short of preposterous. It fairly invites a return to the mass murdering ideologies of the Twentieth Century – Nazism, communism, etc – and opens the door wide for Islamism.

Even so, its “happy face” partner political correctness continues to permeate our culture and our media. And, alas, as we are now painfully aware, it has infected our military – badly. How else to explain that Nidal Hassan was passed through the Army system for years despite making numerous public pronouncements that sounded as if they were ripped from the pages of an al Qaeda training manual?

This sad infection of our military is the most disturbing and self-destructive achievement of political correctness yet. Still, cable television spends hours trying to probe the “motivations” of Hasan, as if a Muslim bumper sticker torn from his car could explain his actions or even (oh, hope) exonerate him. That way we would not have to deal with the ideology behind him and, more importantly, not have to confront our own pathology.

But that pathology of political correctness has now been laid bare before us. More than the two handguns, it was the murder weapon in that room at Fort Hood. Those thirteen innocent people are indeed PC deaths because it was PC that allowed Hasan to be there. The question is, as it is with all emotionally loaded learning, what will we do with this new information?

To begin with, we must explore what attracted us to political correctness in the first place. Several explanations suggest themselves: political expediency, increased power in certain quarters, the desire to be left alone, the desire to be loved, even psychosexual masochism. There are more, I am sure. But they must be ventilated. Nothing can bring back the thirteen who were killed. But the most fitting memorial to them would be that their murders would signal the death knell of political correctness.

The situation in Iran is yet another example of how we live in a world upside down since 9/11 with liberals seemingly less interested in the fate of the freedom demonstrators than conservatives, libertarians and independents. Meanwhile, the mullahs continue their fascist actions. As I used to write on this blog years ago and as the old song goes, “Which side are you on? Which side are you on?”

Now I realize that the surprise loser there, Doug Hoffman, ran as a Conservative, not a Republican. But I submit in this case that was a distinction without a significant difference because virtually all the Republican establishment had lined up behind Hoffman by the day of the election.

So why – in what was clearly a Republican year – did Hoffman lose? Well, there are several reasons and, yes, the Democratic victory was narrow, thinner than the five or so percent that went to withdrawn Republican nominee Scozzafava who herself endorsed the Democratic candidate. Still, the 23rd is a safely Republican, even conservative, district. In a year where the GOP racked up a 20% margin in Virginia and coasted easily in Jersey, a state in which Obama romped in ‘08 by 16%, what was the problem?

Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.

Hoffman’s capital-C Conservative campaign, however, tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage, seemingly as upset as he was with her support for the stimulus plan. He projected the image of a bluenose in a world that increasingly doesn’t want to hear about these things. Hoffman’s is a selective vision of the nanny state – you can nanny about some things but not about others. I suspect America deeply dislikes nannying about anything.

There is, of course, a message in this for the Republican Party going forward. You can choose to emphasize the social issues or not. Today may show the former is a losing proposition.

Interesting conundrum. I suspect the Russians are crazy enough themselves (a majority evidently still love Comrade Stalin) to come down in favor of the mullahs, but we shall see. Or not. Events could take over. It doesn’t seem that anybody has a real plan – anybody that’s talking about it anyway.

There are many reasons for this but William Voegeli has put his finger on one of the major ones in “Golden State isn’t worth it” – an op-ed that appeared yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. I wonder how many of its readers (or editors) read it, because what Voegeli is saying goes against the policies the paper has taken since I moved West in the era when Mama Cass & Co. sang “California Dreamin’” and ” Go Where You Wanna to Go.” (Oh, man, do the lyrics of that last one make me sad.)

But back to Voegeli. He writes in the LAT:

In America’s federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a “package deal” that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.

It’s not surprising, then, that there’s an intense debate over which model is more admirable and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit/low-tax package not only succeeds on its own terms but also according to the criteria used to defend its opposite. In other words, the superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren’t being delivered.

Voegeli goes on to back this up with facts and figures, adding more in a lengthier piece in City Journal. But to those of us who live here those facts and figures are just so much garnish. We know without opening the papers that Cass’ lyrics have gone sour. It’s almost as if we are living in Friedrich von Hayek’s posthumous joke. All our best intentions have gone to mush in a welter of competing, greedy interest groups. Now, according to Voegeli, and as every California commuter knows, even the state highway system in low taxes Texas is better than the world’s fabled first freeway system. Those great songwriters Lieber & Stoller remain unreconstructed liberals, but even they must be worried about the black denim clad hero of their song on Highway 101.

Which brings me to my conclusion. I thought about sending Voegeli’s article to all my (modern) liberal friends – the remaining ones anyway – because I thought it would get them thinking, if anything does. But I stopped. In this era, nobody’s talking.

No, when I read this tedious New York Times piece, I was reminded of Lerner & Lowe’s immortal “Show Me.” We all remember the lyrics: Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words/ I get words all day through/First from him, now from you/Is that all you blighters can do, etc. (Here’s Julie Andrews in the original Broadway production.)

So I’m not really interested in Obama as a man (or as a husband). I’m interested in what he does. And most of that, of late, he has done in secret. We know more about his marriage than about how the healthcare legislation was drafted or how its contents are being negotiated. As Politico told us a few days ago:

When Barack Obama was running for president, he vowed to lead the most open and transparent government in history. Candidate Obama even promised to negotiate health care reform live on television.

Then it came time to govern, and President Obama has negotiated major parts of the health care bill behind closed doors. Earlier this year, he announced deals his administration had cut with drug companies and hospitals after brokering them out of public view. And now his top lieutenants are working in secret with leading Democrats to craft the health care bill that will be debated on the Senate floor.

What the Times is giving us then in their Couples Hagiography is a form of distraction that is probably deliberate. If you love the people, you wont care what they are doing. Trust them – they’re nice folks. Well, okay, but the reaction of someone like me is that I trust them less. Sure, you could say that I am already an Obama skeptic, but I suspect I am not alone in recoiling at this public relations flackery. It even makes me suspicious when I read things about the Obama administration I applaud, like the recent news from Jerusalem that US has for once given the Israelis a break – but perhaps that was Hillary’s doing. You can bet the Times isn’t writing puffery about her marriage… Well, maybe they would.

Anyway, Lionel and I knew we had to change course. Who could resist this record-breaking moment in the history of brown-nosing? And we were both unlikely to get a grant from the NEA at this point anyway. So off we went, burning bridges again.

All Hail Obama – you can watch the new Poliwood here.

And I think that’s the point. Healthcare needs improvement. What doesn’t? But what’s the rush? At present it is far from a catastrophe. The law of unintended consequences tells us a precipitous move may only make things worse. Why not move step by step? I am enough of a pragmatist to follow that where it may lead, even to a single-payer plan, even though I strongly doubt that would happen. But the current method seems so driven by politics it’s no wonder the public seems about to throw up. But the backers of this bill don’t seem to care. They are so locked in their own ideology they seem unwilling to test it. A gradual approach could, of course, reach their desired result, if it proves to be correct. But I suspect many of the people behind this distrust their own ideas. They don’t really believe themselves. They are only interested in power.

As for Proust, at this moment the collection of Remembrance of Things Past is number 672,039 on Amazon. I’m thinking of buying it and kicking it up a few notches. It’s either that or the Pelosi bill. Which do you think is more nourishing?

Well, the answer to my headline question is then “No, we’re not.” But it may be that plurality of us now are. There is a message in this for the Republican Party: No Rick Santorums, please. Keep the government out of our pocket books and out of our bedrooms.

And there is a message (or a warning) to the Democratic Party as well: Barack Obama is manufacturing libertarians – not Democrats and certainly not liberals.