The Dish

A classic Mike Wallace interview: Henry Kissinger’s 1958 support of the concept of "limited war" against the Soviet Union. This passage can’t help but leap out fifty years later:

We must have the capability to react to Soviet threats at the same level of intensity at which they present it so that we don’t always have to choose between the destruction of the United States and the defense of the countries which may be threatened but rather that we can defend the areas which are threatened at the place where the threat occurs … It is a policy that we are ready to engage in a limited war that we have troop transports that … enable us to get into position quickly, that we have the forces to engage in a limited war which we do not now have …  At the moment we have 13 divisions where the Soviet Union has 175 divisions. If we had more divisions, and if we had air transport, then in case of a Soviet attack, say on Iraq, we could airlift a few divisions into the area and, together with local forces, attempt a defense.

Notice that Kissinger is very clear that he would not countenance launching such a limited war, merely acting if the Soviets attacked. Notice that his first thought of a place for a limited war was … Iraq.

Not an Obama strength.

More, please:

I love this country not because it’s perfect, but because we’ve always been able to move it closer to perfection. Because through revolution and slavery; war and depression; great battles for civil rights and women’s rights and worker’s rights, generations of Americans have shown their love of country by struggling and sacrificing and risking their lives to bring us that much closer to our founding promise. And as long as I live, I will never forget that I am only standing here because they did… That is the country I love. That is the promise of America.

Even better from almost a year ago:

[Obama] referred to the anniversary of the March on Selma, how he went and how he came back and someone (I don’t remember who now) said to him:

"That was a great celebration of African-American history."

To which Obama said he replied:

"No, no, no, no, no. That was not a great celebration of African-American history. That was a celebration of American history."

The patriotism and faith of the civil rights movement is Obama’s core message. He must never forget that – and the unifying, uplifting love of country it represents.

Better.

By Patrick
Publius summarises the Bush foreign policy mindset and the possible political consequences of withdrawal from Iraq. Jonathan Rauch wrote about the danger of a partisan withdrawal a few months ago.

… on what the meaning of "pledged" is.

"Conservative skepticism has its place; it can be a valuable corrective when government goes flabby and corrupt or engages in wild neo-colonialist fantasies abroad. Any new legislation–or any new war–needs to be carefully vetted by those who would question its assumptions or who can put it in a larger context. Those who believe that government can act more ably than free individuals and markets in all–or even in most–circumstances are not patriots, but fools, and the same is true of those who only believe in the supremacy of the market," – Joe Klein, Swampland.

For me, conservatism is defined by skepticism of government, of rationalism, and of change – but it is not an ideology opposed to all government and reason and change. One of my mentor Michael Oakeshott’s great insights was that all politics can be seen in the West in modern times as a battle between the politics of faith and the politics of skepticism. He was a dogged defender of skepticism in an era when hubristic liberal rationalism was at its height. But even then, he recognized the necessity and recurrence of the politics of faith in the West as well. For him, a true conservative sought balance in accordance with the times. Occasionally, liberalism was needed – not for too long, but sometimes as an agent of change, or as a respite from corruption and degeneracy elsewhere. Occasionally, a true conservative can endorse even radical change – as Burke supported American independence, as Disraeli expanded the franchise, as Reagan slashed taxes and sought to abolish nuclear weapons. And this pragmatism between skepticism and faith – this attempt to keep both in precarious balance for the sake of social and political coherence – is the true conservative position.

I don’t expect the avatars of the American conservative "movement" to embrace this definition of the c-word. Many are principled ideologues or religious enthusiasts who hold that their ideology and theology is always the answer to every practical question. But the pursuit of the intimations of our time is the Oakeshottian calling. I do not believe that today, the kind of conservative I have in mind would want to reward the Republican party for its recent recklessness, utopianism and bile.

Milan, Italy, 7.05 pm.

A reader writes:

I’m offering you a challenge this week. I dislike … ahem … hate Clinton as much as you do, but I wonder if you can’t find a few nice things to say about her. So here’s my challenge to you: say at least one nice thing about Clinton each day of this week.  It can be a comment on her pant-suit if you wish, or something of that nature, but it must be positive.

NOTE: The Clinton challenge is not valid in the states of Michigan and Florida.

Ok, I’ll try.

By Patrick
Jonathan Chait:

Almost nobody contends that Clinton has a chance to overcome Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. The spin now is that Obama’s delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates’ hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that’s insurmountable is, by definition, not small. The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up–proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner–are exactly what made Obama’s lead so impressive.

The notion that the superdelegates will decide the race implies that pledged delegates won’t matter–like a sports event that goes to overtime. Obviously, though, the pledged-delegate count determines how many superdelegates each candidate needs. Depending on how the remaining primaries go, Clinton will need about two-thirds of the uncommitted ones to break her way. Problem is, over the last month, superdelegates have broken to Obama by 78 percent to 22 percent.