David McElroy

Many of us have watched warily as Vladimir Putin has edged closer to turning Russia into an authoritarian state again. I’m supportive of the current protests against him, but I’m concerned about the strength communists are gaining in the country.

Everywhere you look in the pictures and video from the Russian protests lately, you see the red flag of the communist Soviet Union. It’s a reminder that things could easily get worse there.

I’ve been told by friends in Russia that many Russians are supporting the communists simply because they see them as a realistic alternative to Putin’s United Russia party. There are western-style liberal political groups, but they’re apparently not the rising political bloc as was once hoped. (Remember that “liberal” here means “pro-liberty.” It has nothing to do with what the word means in U.S. politics.)

I only have one point here. If you put your faith into a majoritarian political system, you’re playing Russian roulette, which seems like an appropriate metaphor in this context. You can only be free if other people agree you should be free. If most of them want a strongman such as Putin — or a return of the communists — you’re stuck with that, too.

The real issue isn’t changing politicians or parties. The real issue is changing an immoral system that claims the right to make your decisions. That’s just as true in America as it is in Russia.

With long faces and grim predictions, U.S. politicians from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on down are starting to implement budget cuts to the U.S. military. Am I the only one who’s ecstatic about the first cuts and eager for more to come quickly?

Panetta warned last month that cuts would be “devastating” to the Pentagon. Republicans have solemnly warned against cuts that go beyond the relatively minor cuts that Congress agreed to in August. Officials of both parties warn that the defense needs of the country might suffer with the automatic cuts that are going into effect after the congressional “super committee” gave up on its effort to find other budget solutions.

The military is supposed to find $450 billion in additional cuts over a 10-year period. Does this mean we can’t invade countries such as Iraq anymore? Does it mean that if some military action is required — such as attacking terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan — that we can strike somewhere and then leave the country alone afterwards? Does it mean that we won’t be spending money to help overthrow various governments — such as Libya’s — so that one dictator can be replaced by another bad regime?

Does it mean we can shut down U.S. military bases in Europe — and let the Europeans defend themselves? Does it mean that we can bring the troops home and send many of them to productive jobs in the civilian world?

Keep Reading

As Christmas approaches, these guys are having to set aside their search for self-discovery, but this is what they do in the off-season. (Click this one for a bigger size.)

Keep Reading