McCain’s National Greatness Conservatism

Matt Yglesias calls it imperialism:

To McCain it is precisely commitment to this imperial vision that makes American patriotism superior to other brands of nationalism. Our own patriotism would become compromised by stinginess and selfishness were we to show more restraint in world affairs.

This really is a core issue in this election, and it’s one more reason to hope for an Obama-McCain debate. Do the last few years suggest America needs to be more imperialist, more ambitious, more military and more interventionist? Or do they recommend the opposite?

I don’t pretend to have always had the same perspective on this, or not to have shifted with the times. In the Cold War, I was pro-American. The world needed a counter-weight to the evils of expansionist, imperial communism. (But I was never an American utopian. There’s nothing new in humanity in this country – just a better system and more freedom, which tends to be the best corrective against sustained error.) After the Cold War, I saw no reason to oppose a prudent American policy of selective interventionism to deter evil and advance good a little, but even in the Balkans, such a policy did not require large numbers of ground troops and was enabled by strong alliances. After 9/11, I was clearly blinded by fear of al Qaeda and deluded by the overwhelming military superiority of the US and the ease of democratic transitions in Eastern Europe into thinking we could simply fight our way to victory against Islamist terror. I wasn’t alone. But I was surely wrong. Haven’t the last few years been a sobering learning experience? Haven’t we discovered that allies actually are important, that fear is no substitute for cold assessment of self-interest, that saying something will happen is not that same thing as it actually happening?

That someone could come out of the last few years believing that Teddy Roosevelt’s American imperialism is a model for the future is a little hard for me to understand. McCain has several months in which to explain himself. This skeptic will listen; but I’m much more chastened than McCain seems to be. And a little unnerved that he seems utterly unaltered by the new millennium.

The Clintons’ Tax Returns

This is the explanation:

"When she’s the general-election nominee, she’ll release the tax returns."

But that’s not an explanation. I really can’t see why this lack of transparency isn’t a bigger deal. On what grounds is it legit to withhold critical information until the primaries are over? Especially when the vagaries of the Clintons’ rapidly growing – and partly meshed – fortune is a serious campaign issue. Especially when a candidate has borrowed from herself to float her campaign. Shouldn’t this be asked tonight? Shouldn’t the press insist on getting the returns?

Malkin Award Nominee

"You remember, ladies and gentlemen, John Kerry, when he was running for the presidency in 2004, went down there to NASA, and he dressed up in a sperm costume.  Remember that picture?  It looked like John Kerry was running through the tubes, the shuttle launch complex, or whatever it was, looked like a sperm cell, with just his face sticking out.  And everybody was laughing themselves silly, just having the greatest time making fun of Kerry because he did look like a dork.  He looked like an idiot.  He looked like a sperm cell.  Now Obama dresses up like Bin Laden, and if you mention it, it’s a scurrilous attack.  This is the brilliance of the Obama campaign," – Rush Limbaugh.

Obama "dresses up like Bin Laden"? They’re desperate. They’re also despicable.