Neocon-Realist-Blah

Fareed Zakaria considers McCain’s foreign policy proposals:

McCain has turned into a foreign-policy schizophrenic, alternating between neoconservative posturing and realist common sense. His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic.

The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers?

When you look at McCain’s fiscal proposals and his foreign policy vision, one begins to sense he actually doesn’t have a firm idea of where to go from here. It is three-quarters trying to give every faction in the GOP something to appease it and one-quarter winging it. Leadership? Nowhere I can see. And fellow journalists who have interviewed him recently report that he seems alternately confused, defensive and cranky. Even on the Wright stuff he seems to be on every side of the issue. I like the man, but I wonder if he isn’t running eight years’ too late. In a debate with Obama, he might come undone.

Quote For The Day

"If Hillary picks the person who saved her campaign then her press secretary will be Rush Limbaugh," – a NRO reader. I think Bill Kristol and Karl Rove will be close seconds. And Pat Buchanan not far behind. 

Isn’t it a relief, by the way, for the MSM to have a presidential campaign in which no issues are actually discussed? This Wright-stuff is amazing to me. It’s all the MSM seems to care about. Even coverage of McCain is now about his attitude toward an unhinged black pastor from Chicago. Hey: it beats discussing war, debt, the economy, torture, and terrorism. Because it enables America to return to the classic boomer racial-cultural wars that are all the MSM truly knows how to cover. There’s nothing to be done right now but to duck and cover. And emerge when actual questions of actual salience emerge.

Why I Don’t Go To Many Parties

Mark Kleiman:

Yesterday I went to a party at Robin Hanson’s.  Megan McArdle, Bryan Caplan, Will Wilkinson, Tyler and many others were in attendance, as was my 6-year old. 

"How was the party?," my wife asked the 6-year old.

"It was like this," he answered, "Blah, blah, blog.  My blog, blah, blah, blah.  Blog, blah, blog."

From the mouths of babes…

Christianism In The Military

One of the darkest developments of many dark developments in the Bush years has been the slow ascent of Christianism as a core value of the military. The promotion of Christianists throughout the armed services, the insistence by the president that no public institution be regarded as a place where religion should be silent, clear discrimination against Jews and atheists in military educational institutions: the possibility of a secular military dedicated to defending all Americans regardless of their faith or lack of it has been called into question under the current administration. The resilience of the ban on gays – while the military has granted a record number of waivers to criminals – can only be understood if one sees the US military as an increasingly religious institution at this point, and not a rational secular one. The latest story of an atheist soldier being threatened by superiors is believable in this context. Volokh has details from the complaint.

Many people don’t realize just how serious the Christianists are in this respect. If America is a Christianist nation, its military, drawn disproportionately from regions where Christianism holds sway, must be also. It follows that non-Christianists can be a threat to unit cohesion and morale. The first commenter on Volokh’s post spells out the emerging Republican consensus:

The military, that is, is a place where any reduction in unit quality literally costs lives; it is not a place for ‘equal opportunity’ or social engineering.

I would argue that the presence of atheists in the military is vulnerable to that very same argument. Never mind the question of whether an atheist can feel any genuine loyalty to a Christian nation, given that he rejects the core principles on which our nation was built;

never mind the unlikelihood that someone who denies an afterlife would sacrifice his own life for any reason, instead of cutting and running like John Kerry; never mind the fact that atheism correlates with all manner of other moral degeneracies – "[Those w]ho changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections […] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful…" (Romans 1:25-31) – and so speaks to the moral character of the soldier; the simple fact is that we are a Christian nation with a Christian army, and our soldiers’ strength and willingness to sacrifice their lives for the good of the United States and their fellow soldiers comes, in large part, from their Christian faith. An atheist cannot, by definition, share in that faith or that culture; he cannot pray with his troops or empathize with their worries and inmost beliefs; and how can a Christian soldier trust his life to someone who, the Bible makes clear, is hated by God and condemned to Hell? How can a Christian trust the leadership of someone who refuses to be led by God?

I’m sure (some) atheists would be able to serve with distinction in the military, just like some women could. But, again, the army is not a place for social engineering; the answer to prejudice in the military is not to forcibly integrate – with the attendant costs to unit cohesion and morale – and expect them to ‘get over it’ in situations when their ‘getting over it’ will cost lives. If (God forbid!) atheism becomes acceptable to the vast majority of the United States’ civilian population, then it will be time to permit atheists to serve. Until then, our army is – and should remain – Christian.

Obama On Fox

Mickey’s take:

McCain will have trouble beating the Obama who showed up on Fox News Sunday, giving a highly effective interview to Chris Wallace. It included this bait for Hillary: "I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea."  Obama cited not just "merit pay" but also "experimenting with charter schools," which he said has gotten him "in trouble with the teachers union."

The trouble is Obama’s unevenness in campaigning. For every great day, there is a total clunker (like the Philly debate). Of course, part of what appeals to me in Obama is the fact that he still seems like a normal human being, and not one of the drone-machines that Clinton has become, running on fumes, utterly resistant to normal human failings, a pure political persona. But normal people also have off-days, make gaffes, stumble and sigh. In today’s media world, all people care about are the off-days, the friends you have, and the gaffes. Policies? War? Debt? Torture? Zzzzzzz. True media-pros think these subjects are very retro.

If Obama Had Said It

Imagine the fuss if Barack Obama had pledged to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. He’d be regarded as green, unready for the presidency, prone to hyperbole, untested and unvetted. If his comment had rattled key allies, from Saudi Arabia to Britain, the critics would have pounced. And yet Senator Clinton’s extreme rhetoric in the Philly debate was barely noted by the media. And some say she gets no respect.