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 . . .
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.
Good read from Steyn. He's one of the few voices who can criticise the political right in America with any real legitimacy.
"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
"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
***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....
Sound like Styne is loosing patience with the Prez.
Very objective and timely article!!! Mark Steyn routinely hits the ball out of the park. Hope the GOP is paying attention.
That's me.
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.
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.
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.
This is an excellent point.
""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.
Thanks for the post, Tom. Thanks for the ping Pokey!
Steyn may be conservatives' clearest visionary writer.
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!!!!