Ideology Has Consequences

The American Conservative ^ | Nov 20, 2006 | Jeffrey Hart

[okie01]

Sure enough, that was your pavlovian comeback. Nuke 'em before they nuke us seems like it will be the next step in this deadly progression.

Tell me, where did I even suggest such action?

Moreover, wars don't always go the way one plans. The other side has some say in events. Consequently, I would expect our side to make mistakes, strategic and tactical -- as they have in every war in our history (with the possible exception of the Mexican War).

Such setbacks don't sour my attitude toward what seemed to me a necessary war in the first place. You disagree. And your disagreement is honest -- being based on how you see the facts of the matter. Still, now that the country is engaged, I feel safe in assuming you would prefer that we win.

I won't make the same assumption about the left, however. They have been instrumental in promoting the terrorist cause and denigrating the American one.

What was it Nathan Hale said...???

[Giant Conservative]

Carter was a double hit: really bad with the economy and really bad with foreign affairs.

[x]

He makes much sense, but the sentiments Bush voices were also expressed by Ronald Reagan. That kind of optimistic, universalist rhetoric has been the American tradition for generations. People will disagree about just how far you want to take that liberationist idea in practice under given circumstances, but it's going to be very hard to uncouple it from American religion or American politics.

Hart's attempt to link abortion to Iraq via Edmund Burke looks like overreaching, though. "Analytical realism" sounds like a halo word that one attaches to one's own ideas, however realistic or unrealistic, analytical or unanalytical, they may be. The world historical imperative that Hart detects behind feminism and Bush sees in democratization may not be so very different. At any rate, Hart is pushing a bizarre comparison/contrast of his own.

[murdoog]

Better than Reagan? Or are you so young he is not in your lifetime?

[ClaireSolt]

I never cared for Reagan. He was governor when I was a teacher in CA. When asked about him in the 80's I usually said that I was not much enjoying our new battleships. I know many admire him, but he never caught my fancy.

[jim35]

I'd be willing to wager that the Hart article was a hit-piece on GW, written by a self-styled conservative with rather curious principles. I couldn't care less what this article, which prognisticated GW's future historic infamy, has to say, since it is nothing but speculation, and probably based on personal dislike. I happen to disagree with nearly everything the author has to say, find it insulting rather than enlightening, and find your defence of this crap mere sophistry. I am not at all impressed with your ability to parse sentences or words, and I can assure you that I'm not blind to a critic who uses other's quotes to defame another. You seem to excuse these smear tactics, because the author cites another source. I see the reason the author cites this specific source, it being to criticize GW. Historians will judge GW, either fairly or unfairly, in different ways, depending on their own world views. If they're fair, they'll judge him as one of the best, in my opinion. To say differently is to take sides in the pro- or anti-Bush debate, which this author definitely has.

[Gondring]

I'd be willing to wager that the Hart article was a hit-piece on GW, written by a self-styled conservative with rather curious principles. Now you're calling Dr. Wilentz a "self-styled conservative"?! That's interesting! Dr. Wilentz testified before the House Judiciary Committee to argue against impeachment of Clintoon, and although he's a yellow-dog Dem, I doubt you'd ever hear him claim to be "conservative."

[beckett]

"Analytical realism" sounds like a halo word that one attaches to one's own ideas, however realistic or unrealistic, analytical or unanalytical, they may be.

This brings up something I've noted but never expressed in writing. Hart means by "analytical realism" a governing philosophy that is essentially, as he says elsewhere in the article, "prudent" and "realistic." It's arguable, as you observe, that this is just "halo" talk, because, really, who's opposed to prudence and reality? Surely, liberals would claim their ideas are just as prudent and reality-based as the proposals of conservatives.

But Hart's implied criticism of GWB is that he's acted imprudently, rashly and recklessly. Looking back, his criticism has some merit, at least to me. And one wonders if the American people would ever have guessed Dubya possessed these traits in 2000, when they elected him (barely).

Dana Carvey made a living as a comic for a few years imitating George H.W. Bush. His signature line in the bit had Pere Bush going, "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent." Americans laughed.

In 2000 I think they envisioned a presidency not far from Dad's, 2nd generation prudence incarnate. Instead they got the whole "bold" thing, which, as I've said, looks more like recklessness now.

[jim35]

Really? I believe the author of this piece in the magazine called "American Conservative," and a former Reagan speech writer, now a senior editor of a conservative magazine may consider himself a conservative. You may notice from my reference to Hart, that I was referring to Jeffrey Hart, not Wilentz. Read my snippet that you pasted to your own post, observe the name is "Hart," not Wilentz, and give your smugness a rest.