Month: June 2007

Ross Douthat reviews Paul Berman on Tariq Ramadan.

An inquiry. A website!

I really should ‘t get so much pleasure from this, should I?

A reader writes:

You wrote:

"Iraq, however, is not the sole cause of this phenomenon. Where states are weak in the Arab Muslim world, where order is remote, Jihad will thrive. And its targets are far more likely to extend more globally to the West and Westerners and Western-oriented Muslims than the Palestinian terrorism of the past. This is the next wave. I see no way to stop it."

There is definitely a way to stop it. Drastically reduce our consumption of gasoline.  Drop the price of oil worldwide, and apply economic pressure to any nation with citizens that finance Jihadis. Saudi Arabia in particular. We must force Muslims to make their money the traditional way – with ingenuity and innovation. Integrate them into the global market, instead of subsidizing their fanatical religious bubbles. Blowing up Westerners will become far less popular among their populations, once we become their primary customers. Given the option, 99.9% of people will pick secular, progressive capitalism over fanatical religion every time. Having a petro-economy deprives many Muslims of that choice, and they in turn help radicalize the rest.

A reader writes:

Just something I found interesting. Barack Obama’s candidacy has been criticized because of his lack of governmental experience.  He spent about 8 years as an Illinois state senator and will, by ’08, have spent almost 4 years in the U.S. Senate.

What about Fred Thompson?  He doesn’t get the "lack of experience" criticism, but he was in the Senate for only about 8 years – he filled the last 2 years of Gore’s term, and then had one full term of his own.  Other than this, he’s never been elected to anything.  He was an assistant US Attorney for 3 years and served about a year as an attorney for a Congressional committee investigating Watergate.

Good point, no?

Brink Lindsey offers a helpful counter-balance to the doom-sayers on the American economy.

A reader writes:

As a former editor of a campus conservative newspaper, I feel particularly sad when I see comments like those of George Will describing what conservatism "means."  The problem is that there is a difference between normative conservatism — what conservatism should be about — and positive conservatism, or a description of what conservatism actually is today.  The conservatism of Ron Paul, or George Will, or Andrew Sullivan, while an admirable thing, has almost nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism as it has actually been practiced in this country for many decades.  To be "conservative" in America today is to believe in state power — something that would have repelled Barry Goldwater.  To be "conservative" in America today is to believe in Wilsonian foreign activism — something that would have repelled Robert Taft.  To be conservative today is to believe in Federal laws about "morals" issues instead of state-by-state federalism on issues not related to "interstate commerce."  Conservatism today is all about cultural affinity as opposed to ideology.  It is about comfort.  Comfort with people, and comfort with received notions of what America is supposed to "represent."

The notion that conservatism is somehow a "temperament" as opposed to an ideology is true today, but in a different way than the past.  Conservatism has become something tribal —  It is not about anything in particular anymore.