So Which Country Would Kentucky Join?

A supposedly respected Russian analyst, who 10 years ago predicted the collapse of the U.S. economy, now says that America will break apart into six or more little countries.

Professor Igor Panarin told Izvestia that the failure of investment banks, U.S. debt and tough times for the auto industry convince him that the end of America is near.

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

That "vulnerable political setup" would be the constitution -- the framework of the longest functioning democracy in the history of the world. That "lack of unified national laws" would be federalism, which has allowed us to survive this long. Those "divisions among the elite" would refer to that consequence of free speech: differences of opinion.

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." (Note to Igor: Sarahcuda may have something to say about that.)

Now as to those six parts, I don't see where Kentucky fits. We are on Eastern Standard Time (barely) and we do have a "distinct and separate mentality." But I fear that those snobs in East may not want us to join their country. They may not even want Upstate New York. If the Atlantic states are in a different country from the "northern states,"the Atlantic country will probably set its border somewhere around Westchester County.

Does the esteemed professor deem Kentucky one of the five "poorer central states with their large Native American populations"? Kentucky is a poor state, no question. We did have Native Americans at one point, before we drove them west. Consequently, we have a governor who likes gambling but no reservations with casinos. As best I can tell, only the park system in Louisville and the names of a few high schools hearken back to that Native American influence. I don't see Kentucky in the Native American Republic.

Perhaps we fall in the "South with its Hispanics." We are sort of Southern, at least around Derby time. And Kentucky's Hispanic population is on the rise.

Kentucky does not fit neatly into any of the professor's categories. That could be because Kentucky truly is sui generis. Or it could be that the Russian prof does not know we exist: plainly, our "sister city" of Perm, Russia has not been pulling its weight.

If and when the end comes, therefore, we need to form our own Republic. President of Kentucky -- now that would be a fun election.

Georgia Crisis Helps McCain

It's an unfortunate place to look for a silver lining, but in this political climate, I'll take it: Russia's attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union, by invading Georgia, helps John McCain.

American voters have said all along that they view McCain as better equipped to serve as commander-in-chief than Barack Obama. That includes the ability to represent American interests against the bullies of the world, like Vladimir Putin. A new poll, linked by Hot Air, shows that even a sizable percentage of Democrats (31 percent) recognize this reality. Overall, Americans -- by a margin of two to one -- consider McCain better able to deal with Russia than Obama.

The thought of Barry toe to toe with Putin is downright frightening ("Would you like Ukraine with your Georgia, Vlad?"). We cannot afford to elect a president to serve as Putin's play toy. We need a president who understands that first and foremost, he represents America. That's a concept that alludes Barack "citizen of the world" Obama.

The Memo That Won the Cold War

The Cold War ended so quickly that we didn't have much chance to savor the moment. The Washington Times has an excerpt of the State Department memorandum from the Reagan administration that laid out the strategy for ending the former Soviet Union and the Cold War.

Coincidentally, that controversial memo, known as NSDD-75, was written 25 years ago this week, primarily by Bill Clark and Richard Pipes.

Reagan's genius with respect to the Soviets was his rejection of detente and the policy of "containment" that Soviet Studies expert George Kennan had made the cornerstone of U.S.-Soviet relations since 1946. Containment, at its core, assumed that America could not win the Cold War, and should be grateful for anything short of nuclear annihilation.

Reagan was not content to "peacefully coexist" with the Soviets; he insisted that we could apply external pressure to change the very nature of the U.S.S.R..

His ability -- and courage -- to challenge the fundamental premises of American policy is what made Reagan one of our greatest presidents. It is also the characteristic that caused his rivals and enemies to dismiss him as a dim-witted actor.

The most critical portion of the Reagan NSC memo was also the most controversial. Indeed, the State Department wanted to drop it from the memo altogether:

the opening to NSDD-75 established two core "U.S. tasks:" First, "To contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism ... . This will remain the primary focus of U.S. policy toward the U.S.S.R." And, second, "To promote, within the narrow limits available to us, the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic political and economic system in which the power of the privileged ruling elite is gradually reduced."

Fortunately, Reagan agreed with the National Security Council and the language remained. But it did not remain secret:

The directive resonated through the Soviet media. A piece by Grigori Dadyants in Sotsialisticheskaya Industriya stated, "Directive 75 speaks of changing the Soviet Union's domestic policy. In other words, the powers that be in Washington are threatening the course of world history, neither more nor less." Mr. Dadyants confidently assured his comrades that the grandiose "ideas of Reagan and Pipes" were "staggeringly naive."

Reagan was called "grandiose" and "staggeringly naive" by the Soviet press, but the New York Times and other U.S. intelligentsia said even worse. The New York Times, for example, called Reagan a "simpleton," and regularly complained about his refusal to agree to a nuclear freeze.

We know how this story ended, of course. Reagan did not just "threaten" to change the course of history; he changed it. And in the process Americans became safer and Russians became more free.

This is more than a history lesson, however. It's a reminder of what we need in a president, particularly when there are those who threaten America's very existence. Their tactics and philosophy differ, but the Islamofascists want us dead every bit as much as did the Politburo.

We need a president bold enough to revisit, challenge and if necessary reject the assumptions that have guided U.S. policy, just as Reagan jettisoned detente and containment. And we need a president who will not be dissuaded by the "conventional wisdom" at the New York Times. We need a president who is honest enough to acknowledge that we have enemies, and who will position America for a checkmate, even when the intelligentsia says, "we can't win; accept a draw."

At Least National Review Got It Right

TIME has named its "person" of the year: Vladimir Putin. The editors sound a little defensive about the selection:

TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership.

* * *

At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year.

National Review selected its own "man" of the year, and unlike TIME, chose someone who deserved the honor: General David Petraeus:

Gen. David Petraeus [is] commander of the multinational force in Iraq and architect of the surge strategy that is turning the tide in the war. Petraeus formulated a brilliant counterinsurgency plan. He executed it with care and diligence. And when much of the country didn’t want to notice the security gains that the surge had wrought, he took the national media spotlight to defend his strategy and his honor. In all this, he was nothing less than masterly.

* * *

For making victory in Iraq look possible again, and for pulling a nation back from the brink of civil war, Petraeus deserves the praise and thanks of all Americans. With or without a Time cover, he is the man of the year.

Barbara Walters, for anyone who missed it and cares, annointed Harry Potter author J.K.Rowlings as the most "fascinating person" of 2007.

Baba Wawa and TIME remind us why we need National Review. "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."