|
Buchanan writer regrets Iraq’s liberation
Writing in the October 8th issue of The American Conservative, a self-described former War blogger and now convert to the antiwar cause named Jack Strocci issues a series of apologies for his benighted support for the war. Last comes this:
Finally, I owe an apology to the Iraqi people for any inconvenience caused by my urging on of the recent hail of precision-guided, high-explosive ordnance targeted at their land.The reader should pause to take in the meaning of those words. Strocci is not complaining here about missing WMDs or the burdens of empire; he’s not arguing that the Iraq war was ruinous to America or based on deceit. He’s saying he regrets that we liberated the Iraqi people from the grip of Hussein. The Anti-War Party has become so reactive and contrarian against President Bush, that—acting on the amoral principle that the beneficiary of my enemy is my enemy—it publishes a writer who positively wishes that the Iraqis were still toiling under Hussein’s monstrous reign of terror. Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 13, 2003 01:50 AM | Send Comments
Social Democrats, USA Splitting the Republican Coalition Irving Kristol is a leading spokesman among neoconservatives. He co-edits the Public Interest, a journal that is often an excellent source on political and economic matters. Kristol did a piece for the Wall Street Journal in June called “Times of Transformation.” In it he delivers a seminal analysis of the current political scene. The article, although not so intended, suggests a winning strategy for Democrats. Kristol points out that the conservative revolution in the Republican Party occurred in 1964 when Rockefeller lost the presidential nomination. He argues that the liberal revolution captured the Democratic Party in 1972 with the nomination of George McGovern. Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism “as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society.” He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce “tensions” between the two groups. Kristol’s long range view is that the social conservatives represent “an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year.” more… Luther, first, I’m not sure what that article by Bruce Miller, in which he points the way toward the Dem Party’s recapturing national power, has to do with Iraq. Second, though the article contains an excellent summary of the opposing political forces which have rent this country these thirty or so years, Miller reveals an almost laughable misperception at the end, where he writes, “A political party cannot hope to rule unless it speaks to the traditional culture of the people it seeks to lead. Once the Democrats learn that lesson they will become a party of values and economics, the combination of soul and bread, that will win back the social conservatives who deserted the Democratic Party in droves.” Doesn’t he understand that the forces which now control the Dem Party don’t WANT TO relent on their rejection of that “traditional culture” by which they might, were they to start respecting it, win back the middle class in droves? For them, doing that would be the same as a vampire putting a crucifix round his neck to wear. This bunch will NEVER do it. They’d rather die. That’s the whole point — the whole problem with them. You can tell them that ‘til you’re blue in the face (in fact, it’s already been done, innumerable times) — they’re not going to listen, Luther. Posted by: Unadorned on October 13, 2003 8:33 AMI agree with Unadorned’s point that the Dems’ don’t want to appeal to traditional values. But, assuming that Miller’s point is correct that the Labor Party has indeed done this, why would it be impossible for the Democrats to do the same? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 13, 2003 9:34 AMMiller mentions the British Labour Party in passing. The New Labourites of Tony Blair did change their rhetoric on nationalisation of industry and some other economic points but they are hardly appealing to any kind of traditional values. Read Theodore Dalrymple if you doubt me. Posted by: John Purdy on October 13, 2003 10:28 AMMr. Purdy is correct. “New Labor” is explictly in favor of the destruction of whatever remains of England’s traditional culture. Never forget Blair’s statement that he wanted to “sweep away all those forces of conservatism.” In fact, New Labor was probably more hostile to traditional culture than Old Labor. It became less leftist on economic issues, and more leftist on cultural issues, which is similar to what the American left did. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 13, 2003 10:37 AM |