[Tom D.]

Steyn's comments are quite timely.

[maryz]

Steyn ping!

Is it my imagination, or are Steyn's columns more and more, well, burdened, grave, sad lately? There's plenty of reason for it, of course . . .

[Strategerist]

The thing is I think the Small Government (in terms of spending and entitlements) wing of the party now exists mainly in terms of half the people on an NRO cruise, not actual people out in the country.

The main division in reality among the mass of voters in the party is not between the War and Small Government folks, it's between Fundivangelist Social Cons and the not particularly religious.

[Prodigal Son]

Good read from Steyn. He's one of the few voices who can criticise the political right in America with any real legitimacy.

[goldstategop]

I agree. I've one foot in both camps and its time to knock conservative heads together. Or we'll keep on losing election after election.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[goldstategop]

The way I look at it is we need to see freedom take root in the Middle East. But we can't do that if we ignore freedom at home. Big Government ultimately snuffs out freedom by depriving individuals of the motivation to defend it. Just look at Europe. If America goes down the European road, the logic is as relentless as it is inescapable: we'll won't able to secure freedom abroad when it is lost at home. Conservatives face a big challenge and have to begin to address it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Uncle Ike]

***The president doesn't frame it like that, alas. Instead, he says stuff like: "Freedom is the desire of every human heart." Really? It's unclear whether that's the case in Gaza and the Sunni Triangle. But it's absolutely certain that it's not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, Toronto and New Orleans. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom -- the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff. I would welcome the president using "Freedom is the desire of every human heart" in Chicago and Dallas, and, if it catches on there, then applying it to Ramadi and Tikrit. ***


Only Mark Steyn can expose the myth, and sum up the dilemma, of America in one paragraph.

My only regret is that so many of Mr. Steyn's comments are too long to fit into the space allotted for taglines....

[PetroniusMaximus]

Sound like Styne is loosing patience with the Prez.

[xtinct]

Very objective and timely article!!! Mark Steyn routinely hits the ball out of the park. Hope the GOP is paying attention.

[ExGeeEye]

those conservatives for whom the war trumps everything and peripheral piffle like "No Child Left Behind" can be argued over when the jihad's been seen off

That's me.

[brothers4thID]

As usual, Steyn is right on. I really wish the Congress, the REPUBLICAN Congress, had used Bush's stellar post 9/11 "numbers" to get themselves elected or re-elected, instead of thinking that passing Prescription drug "reform", forming a Department of Homeland Security, and continuing the same old "pork for me = votes in the bank" philosophy of governance.

There are enough old warriors in the Senate and House who should have known that fighting a war is expensive and that pet projects had to be cut back in order to keep the government checkbook somewhere close to balance.

I'm a big supporter of the President but I don't like how "compassionate conservatism" has become "Conservatives giving away money to liberal causes in order to appear more likeable". That's not what I signed on for.

[ExGeeEye]

the war is peripheral and, insofar as it exists, it doesn't begin to mitigate the abandonment of Friedmanite principles on public spending, education and much else

If we don't win the war, we won't be pleased with the public spending, education, or much else.

Not to worry, though; we'll be too busy paying the dhimmi tax and watching the beheadings of infidels and apostates and prostitutes (i.e. women who dared go outside without their masters) to care.

[RKBA Democrat]

I think Mr. Steyn's article is interesting, but I think he misses a few key points.

First, he implicitly assumes that the GOP is all that interested in conservatism. I disagree. The GOP, like the Democratic party, exists to get it's members elected to political office. Hard stop. Ideology is a secondary concern. To the extent that it's even considered.

The recent GOP leadership votes in both the U.S. House and the Senate underline this in bright red. Particularly in the House. GOP representatives had the opportunity to embark on a fresh start and elect a bona fide conservative as their majority leader. They instead picked a defensive strategy and business as usual. And the margin by which they picked that course of action speaks volumes.

Second, Mr. Steyn didn't consider the structural problems that the GOP is facing at the ballot box by way of immigration. I found it interesting that hispanics broke 7-3 for Democrats in this last election. Given that some sort of amnesty deal and future citizenship is a pretty good bet at this point, that spells a structural disadvantage that GOP will be hard pressed to counter. Regardless of whether the GOP is able to pull various disparate factions together.

I don't think the GOP has a very good chance of regaining a majority in either the House of the Senate in 2008. The Presidency is very much in play, but that's about it. And after 2008, the structural advantages that the Democratic party has will really begin to kick in. Now of course the Democrats could always mess things up like they did in the early 90's with socialized medicine. But I don't think that likely. And waiting for the opposition to mess up is not exactly a strategy.

Lest you think I'm bearish on conservatism, I'm really not. I'm very optimistic about the future of conservatism. But not because of partisan politics.

[George W. Bush]

On the one hand, there are those conservatives for whom the war trumps everything and peripheral piffle like "No Child Left Behind" can be argued over when the jihad's been seen off.

The problem the War Party has is that many of those whose votes they need don't feel threatened by the jihadis. Lots of Blue state liberals will bite it long before they try to come for our well-armed butts. Long before they get to us, the libs will grow a pair or two and go on the offensive. So our conservative agenda for smaller government and national security remains intact anyway.

Someone in the GOP needs to do what Ronald Reagan did so brilliantly a quarter-century ago:reconcile the big challenges abroad with a small-government philosophy at home. The House and the Senate will not return to Republican hands until they do.

It's clear he doesn't see Bush in this role. Nor does he mention any comers for '08. This is the reason for his pessimism.

[gotribe]

Promoting liberty and democracy, even if they ultimately fail, is still a good way of messing with the thugs' heads.

Hey Steyn, how about sending your sons and daughters over to die just to mess with thugs' heads? Fight for utopia? Fight for mind games? How glib. Fortunately, Americans are naturally averse to sending ground troops anywhere just because the whim strikes a president. The burden is high for those who want wars, as it should be.

[Tax-chick]

There is a huge gulf between these two forces, to the point where the War Party and the Small Government Party seem as mutually hostile as the Sunni and Shia on their worst days. If the Republicans can't reunite these two wings before 2008, they'll lose again and keep on losing.

This is an excellent point.

[mylife]

Steyn seems curiously pessimistic on the threshold of thanksgiving.

Why focus on the fumbles and follies of Iraq?
Many great gains have been had in the 2 short years since Saddam was deposed.
Free elections.
The writing and ratification of a democratically based constitution.
The formation of a sovereign government.
The Federalization of the Iraqi states.

Lets not forget that it took 11 long years to ratify our own constitution.
When everyone is given a voice it takes a long time to come to a consensus, but that is the way forward.
If the people are given a voice and they are afforded the opportunity to prosper by their own hand they will reject the yokes of tyrants.

Benevolent Dictators and Socialist Governments may be a river to their people, but the waters run shallow.
Freedom is a gift that runs deeply,even to our very souls.

Carry on Mr Bush. Carry on

[gcruse]

""Freedom is the desire of every human heart." Really? ... The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom -- the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff."

Heh. If you say that on FR, be prepared to be called 'loosertarian' and 'libertine.' Mark has finally run up against the foamers.

[UnklGene]

Thanks for the post, Tom. Thanks for the ping Pokey!

[JCEccles]

Steyn may be conservatives' clearest visionary writer.

[Rummyfan]

Take, for example, Ward Connerly, whose Michigan ballot proposition against racial quotas was one of the few victories conservatives won on Election Day. (Needless to say, most GOP bigwigs, including washed-up gubernatorial loser Dick DeVos, opposed it.)

What has happened to the Republican Pary? If they want to be Dems they may as well change parties, because voters, when given a choice between Dems and Dems Lite, seem to opt for The Real Thing.

However, I support the Bush Doctrine on two grounds -- first, for "utopian" reasons: If the Middle East becomes a region of free states, it will have been the right thing to do and the option most consistent with American values (unlike the stability fetishists' preference for sticking with Mubarak, the House of Saud and the other thugs and autocrats). But, second, it also makes sense from a cynical realpolitik perspective: Promoting liberty and democracy, even if they ultimately fail, is still a good way of messing with the thugs' heads. It's one of the few real points of pressure America and its allies can bring to bear against rogue nations, and in the case of Iran, the one with the clearest shot at being effective. In other words, even if it ultimately flops, seriously promoting liberty and democracy could cause all kinds of headaches for the mullahs, Assad, Mubarak and the rest of the gang. However it turns out, it's the "realist" option.

EXACTLY!!!!