I've been reading this piece by Robert L. Bartley from 1968. Thinking back, its critique of liberalism is incisive, and there are good lines ("[L]iberals apologized for the rioters and announced that the real culprits are all those who proclaim their racism by wearing a white skin."), but his statement that there was a collapse of the left seems not to have panned out to the degree I would have hoped.

Maybe I just don't have a sense for the slow pace of history, but the major changes instituted during the New Deal have not been weakened or even really corrected. Social Security is still the third rail of politics, despite Bush's celebrated defiance of it by discussing reforms. Medicare is still in trouble, more so because of new prescription drug coverage. There has been a perceived shift to the right, but it has been achieved by triangulation around an axis of New Deal institutions. That's why liberals hate George W. Bush so much. Just as conservatives fumed over Clinton's adoption of "their" issues, so are liberals doubly inflamed not only by Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" which accepts these institutions and thereby disables them for the Democrats, but by their loss of control of Congress as well.

Their only remaining power lies in their majority on the Supreme Court which has been enhanced by disastrous Republican appointments. It seems that moderate appointments prove Lord Acton's rule about absolute power, making it more urgent to find appointees who will arouse the very most opposition in the Senate by backing away from Roe v. Wade and the ruling on sodomy. Without a filibuster-proof majority, there seems to be no end to the disastrous jurisprudence of the Sixties.

Decisions based on minority rights have served to create a new third bloc, libertarians. These combine elements from both traditions, defending Second Amendment rights as well as abortion, ending the war on drugs and gay rights. These represent a new approach to the same materialistic arguments that Bartley objected to from the liberals and the New Deal, but he would be hard put to argue against liberty which has been so well promoted with the writings of Thomas Jefferson, despite the impracticality and disastrous consequences of Jefferson's individual and states' rights philosophy. It may be time for the country to rediscover other voices to restore our sense of the duties and responsibilities that accompany liberty. We are only beginning now to realize, for example, that declining sexual restraint, commitment in marriage and willingness to bear and raise children in tradtional families result in increased public burdens and failing social security schemes. This is becoming evident in European nations and Canada, where economic growth now depends on immigration to replace former population growth through reproduction.

Another movement that complicates the simple conservataive-liberal dichotomy is environmentalism, which has become a major growth industry, spreading another materialist argument against growth and burdening economies.

Bartley's views were clear-sighted, and he contributed greatly to the debate, giving a great platform to the thinking of conservatives. I just wish I felt that I had seen more real progress of the shift to the right.

I've been reading /this piece by Robert L. Bartley from 1968. Thinking back, its critique of liberalism is incisive, and there are good lines ("[L]iberals apologized for the rioters and announced that the real culprits are all those who proclaim their racism by wearing a white skin."), but his statement that there was a collapse of the left seems not to have panned out to the degree I would have hoped.

Maybe I just don't have a sense for the slow pace of history, but the major changes instituted during the New Deal have not been weakened or even really corrected. Social Security is still the third rail of politics, despite Bush's celebrated defiance of it by discussing reforms. Medicare is still in trouble, more so because of new prescription drug coverage. There has been a perceived shift to the right, but it has been achieved by triangulation around an axis of New Deal institutions. That's why liberals hate George W. Bush so much. Just as conservatives fumed over Clinton's adoption of "their" issues, so are liberals doubly inflamed not only by Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" which accepts these institutions and thereby disables them for the Democrats, but by their loss of control of Congress as well.

Their only remaining power lies in their majority on the Supreme Court which has been enhanced by disastrous Republican appointments. It seems that moderate appointments prove Lord Acton's rule about absolute power, making it more urgent to find appointees who will arouse that very most opposition in the Senate, and without a filibuster-proof majority, there seems to be no end to the disastrous jurisprudence of the Sixties. Decisions based on minority rights have served to create a new third bloc, libertarians. These combine elements from both traditions, defending Second Amendment rights as well as abortion and now gay rights. These represent a new approach to the same materialistic arguments that Bartley objected to from the liberals and the New Deal, but he would be hard put to argue against liberty which has been so well promoted with the writings of Thomas Jefferson, despite the impracticality and disastrous consequences of Jefferson's individual and states' rights philosophy. It may be time for the country to rediscover other voices to restore our sense of the duties and responsibilities that accompany liberty. We are only beginning now to realize, for example, that declining sexual restraint, marriage commitments and willingness to bear and raise children result in increased public burdens and failing social security schemes. This is becoming evident in European nations and Canada, where economic growth now depends on immigration to replace former population growth through reproduction.

Another movement that complicates the simple conservataive-liberal dichotomy is environmentalism, which has become a major growth industry in spreading another materialist argument against growth and burdening economies.

Bartley's views were clear-sighted, and he contributed greatly to the thinking of Conservatives. I just wish I felt that I had seen more progress toward the shift to the right.v

I've never been as big a reader as my wife, or most people I admire, for that matter. Something to do with depression. ADHD, bipolar illness, senility or something on that continuum. I haven't seen nearly as many films as most people either, and those I've seen, I don't remember that well.

But after reading today's Bleat by James Lileks, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. This Bleat is redolent of Steely Dan and Warren Zevon, may he rest in peace. I suppose it's this reservoir of exposure to culture that enables James, if I can be so familiar, to write so fluidly and speak just as he writes (For proof, go to Hugh Hewitt's show on Monday afternoons). Actually, this piece is a preview of upcoming films. I'm thinking Hugh may have to replace or supplement Emmett. Why isn't Jame Lileks known at least as well as, say, Paul Krugman? Sigh.

I think I have a little more respect for Michael Crichton:

And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

I haven't read the whole thing, but this quotation is certainly right when it comes to global warming, which serves the purposes of environmentalists who probably don't even recognize their own motivations. It may come to pass that they are right about humankind destroying the world, although I doubt it, but if saving it means the loss of human freedom, I don't think it will be worth the cost. We have come so far down the path of technology that there is no going back without immense suffering and death. We cannot undo the Industrial Revolution if we wanted to, and only a tiny minority want to.

Having just read Watership Down, this story made me think one word, Estrafan. As I wrote to Instapundit on his post about the BBC opposing the right to defend one's home with firearms:

If a bunch of rabbits have the right to defend themselves, why not the British public?

I could add the right to rescue people from a regime that refuses its own citizens or those of another country the right to leave. It's all very well to compliment the culture and piety of Islam, and to recognize cultural differences, but this is so medieval as to disqualify a society from the community of civilization. Muslim nations and leaders must sooner or later recognize that it makes no sense to warn people who have no freedom that they will be judged by their actions. If God wanted to prevent us from violating his laws, he could have withheld free will from us.

That is not to say that society can't impose punishments for antisocial behavior, just to say that beyond those things that harm the society, freedom needs to be protected. That is the big difference between the modern world and the world before the Reformation.

E. J. Dionne: "Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever."

I'm sure the President is sorry about that, but then, if he was hoping to win over most Democrats, he probably wouldn't be a Republican, now, would he?

Hugh Hewitt links to this article in the NYTimes about military snipers. I suppose it's intended to sicken readers and turn them against the war, but it tells me that our troops have the warrior ethic that it will take to win. Arabs have no compunction about killing Westerners. If their practice of celebrating everything by shooting AK-47s into the air is any indication they don't worry too much about killing other Arabs either. Why does the Times think so many young Muslims are eager for Jihad, which they interpret as killing non-Muslims and apostate Muslims?

When you have enemies willing to throw their own lives away to kill you, you have to be able to accommodate them, with as few losses on your own side as possible. Does this mean Americans are bloodthirsty? By no means. But if you read Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle, particularly the section about George S. Patton, you realize that all of his bluster about killing was designed to keep his men alive. His insistence on constantly moving and strict discipline all served the same end. It is the timid general, say McClellan in the Civil War, or the unimaginative, like Omar Bradley, or the military idealist, like Robert E. Lee, who waste men's lives in head to head entrenched battles. The true geniuses of war understand first that it is about killing, and soldiers have to accept that, and second that you win wars by keeping your own troops alive and in good shape while killing or wounding more of the enemy.

Snipers are disturbing, not only to civilians, but to other soldiers. They are cold stone killers. They have to be in order to kill with one shot at a range of a mile or more. But they are probably the most humane of forces, because they don't waste ammunition on civilians. They inflict extremely low collateral damage, and scare the hell out of their enemies. I'm glad we have them.

I've really got to read Mark Steyn more diligently. I tend to agree with his point near the end of the linked piece:

On the whole, all the Federal agencies that failed so spectacularly on 9/11 are as bureaucratic, lethargic and inept as they were then. And no-one has been fired. One lucky break for a couple of Islamist boneheads, and the Dems and the media will be hammering Bush on why he let it happen all over again. It remains a melancholy fact that, for a US President, it�s easier to reform Iraq�s government agencies than America�s. I do not expect this situation to improve in 2004.

But what can any administration do about it? Bush doesn't need the political trouble he'd incur by firing whole agencies, nor can he afford to wait for the Senate to go through the agonizing slow motion approval process. The only solution, I'm afraid, is for a two-thirds majority of the nation to become small government conservatives overnight and throw out all the lawmakers who won't support drastic cuts in government bureaucracy. I'm not holding my breath.

Here's a little background on Bam, the Iranian city devastated by the earthquake. It sounds as though the cognoscenti are grieving more for the loss of the world's largest mudbrick structure than over 25,000 dead people. I'm sure that someone will find a way to blame the suffering on Bush, however. Stay tuned.

Update: This photo says more about pain than I possibly can. My check is on the way. As pitiful as that response is, it's heartfelt. If anyone else reads this, do likewise.

And, once again, our friends the Poles prove their quality.

News flash! Thirty years ago, Richard Nixon considered invading the Arab oil producing countries when they announced their oil embargo of the West. What does this tell us? That Nixon was out of touch with his own people.

When I consider Nixon's policies, he had about as much in common with the modern Republican Party as Ted Kennedy.

I find Dana Milbank less than objective when he "reports", in a story about a high school student's tee shirt inserting a comment on John Kerry into a news photo, "One finds this explanation suspect; LaGuardia admitted that he is a Republican." Since when is being a Republican something one admits. The kid says he didn't choose his shirt to embarrass Kerry. Fine. Who cares, other than a jerk reporter who'd like it to be some sort of political dirty trick. The picture was framed and shot by a photographer, not by the student. What party does the photographer belong to? Does Milbank admit to being a Democrat or just a Maureen Dowd wannabe?

I'm getting sick of Howard Dean and his tough act. He's all bluster and outrage over the fact that we went to war without the permission of the U.N. but seems utterly without feelings toward Usama bin Laden or the mass graves being discovered in Iraq. He couldn't care less where bin Laden is tried, assuming he is caught alive. The only thing that seems to upset him is that he's not the president, or at least the anointed Democrat candidate in 2004. He's a perfect example of what C. S. Lewis called "men without chests." One must wonder why he wants to be president if he's so smitten with the idea that we should be governed by international law. Shouldn't he be going after Kofi Annan's job?

He's shaping up to be another Jimmy Carter, but without the sincerity, Michael Dukakis without the credibility, or Bill Clinton without the charm. I'm loath to persuade anybody that Dean shouldn't be nominated, since he has little chance of beating Bush, but it's more than a little scary when one remembers that this country elected Bill Clinton.