Replies

I would disagree with your statement that any true conservative has to be thrilled that for the first time since Lincoln someone is emphasizing human liberty as the central mission of the USA on several fronts. First off, Lincoln didn't give a hoot about liberty. Lincoln's only goal, often stated was preserving the Union, even if he had to go about it in an unconstitutional manner. In fact, he stated often that liberty wasn't the issue early and often. It wasn't until years into the war that he made the abolitionist goal his own....and even then, the Emancipation Proclamation very carefully applied only to the slave areas in rebellion, not to those slave areas still part of the Union. The second area of disagreement would be this idea that all true conservatives will thrill at this statement that it is the goal of the US to deliver freedom to the rest of the world. If you had said neo-conservative, I might have agreed. But most true conservatives will probably be appalled at such sentiments. Sovereign nations are entitled to the form of governments that they decide to set up. It is none of our business until it threatens our security. If the extent of this stated policy is in moral and some sort of financial support, true conservatives will probably go along. If however, this includes sending troops into various countries to "liberate" them without some real threat to our security then I think you will see conservatives revolt in much the same manner that they are going to do with this insane "guest worker" program. Seal our own borders first if you are so concerned about security, then worry about promoting democracy abroad.

Sealing borders, while if done in a legal manner with LEGAL immigration still allowed, is good enough. But there is no amount of sealing borders that is going to defeat the Islamofascist terrorists. If we'd followed that policy in WW II, it's entirely likely that Britain would have been overrun, and certainly probable that WHEN we fought Japan, it would have been with a vastly more powerful Empire that had conquered much of India and possibly even Australia. Moreover, it's s serious question whether the Russkies, who were way overrated, could have defeated Germany without all our Jeeps, trucks, armored personnel carriers, radios, aircraft engines, and, above all, food and supplies.

In that context, bunkering up ain't no option any more. The fight must be proactive, and true conservatives of any stripe (except the most off-the-deep-end Libertarians) know it.

Lincoln's early speeches consistently celebrated LIBERTY and the LAW, as dual components of the nature of America. One could not survive without the other. Bush has made it somewhat more "Christian," juxtaposing liberty with compassion and tolerance---not in a PC sense, but in a Christian sense. It's quite brilliant.

OK, Allrighty then. That would make Bush preeminent over Lincoln in terms of greatness.

Lincoln was famous for how expedient he was, acknowledging that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territories. Of course, that neglects the fact that he set the course of the nation towards abolition, knowing that once the Union won, slavery was over. Bush's approach has not been the easy path.

That expression, "no true conservative", reminds me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I agree with sealing our borders, AND spreading democracy. At the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.