Must-reads – and not just because I agree with them. The Economist’s sober devastation of much of what this president has done domestically (along with sober praise of some of the big and important decisions Bush has gotten right) is very well done. So is my old friend Niall Ferguson’s piece in the Wall Street Journal. I think it’s close to unarguable that a Bush second term, regrdless of whether you believe it would be good for the country, would be terrible for conservatism as a coherent political philosophy. You can only admire David Brooks for trying to find a sliver of coherence here, but the reality of what Bush has done and what he is likely to do has already made a mockery of conservatism as a governing ideology. It will take a period in opposition to put it back together.
OLASKY’S BIGOTRY: What to make of the following sentences in Marvin Olasky’s latest column about John Kerry’s, George W. Bush’s and Marvin Olasky’s Vietnam experiences:
“The other thing both [Bush and I] can and do say is that we did not save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don’t have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don’t have to be saviors. John Kerry, once-born, has no such spiritual support, nor do most of his top admirers in the heavily secularized Democratic Party.”
You will note the term “once-born.” That means that the moral authority achieved by “born-again” evangelicals is unavailable to Catholics like Kerry, or indeed anyone outside the boundaries of fundamentalist Christianity. Hence Bush’s extraordinary ability to draw a line behind all his wasted, irresponsible years, and his current piety. Hence, according to Olasky, Kerry’s inability to question himself or his past. This is an almost seventeenth century piece of public sectarianism and anti-Catholic bigotry. But it’s now the Republican mainstream. (Hat tip: Josh.)
The Dish 