The new Redstate 3.0 design is a bit unwieldy, and I think the guys over there are working out some of the technical issues. But as it stands, I’m finding it not the greatest for my political blogging.
So, back to the Sophistry I come.
As is obviously, I’ve been blogging less and less on this site. Real life has a way of interrupting blog life.
Add to that the fact that there are now a couple of good conservative political sites out there where I could participate in discussion without my own blog, and my decision is settled.
I will be putting all my random thoughts going forward on Redstate.com as a diary/blog post. Someday, I may revisit resurrecting The Sophistry, but for now, consider me a Redstater.
How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
He then takes Obama to task for his unwise statement that he would meet with various and sundry America-hating despots without precondition.
Many of us on the Right have heard this lament before, both from conservative Democrats and from Republicans who want politics to stop at the water’s edge. The contemporary Democratic Party has lost its way, lost its soul, and simply cannot be taken seriously in vital matters of security and foreign policy.
I would have thought the stinging defeat in 2004 would have made the Democrats reconsider their shrill blame-America-first stance on foreign policy that has served them and the country so ill since the 1960′s. But instead, the Democrats have become even more shrill, even less serious, and even more dangerously naive and self-hating.
Let’s take for granted that I believe defeating the Democrats in 2008 is in the vital national interest.
Is defeat in 2008 in the interest of the Democratic Party as well? Would the nadir that a defeat by the Secular Messiah be the final straw that would force a self-examination from within? Or would the Democrats become even more bitter, even more angry, and even more radical than they are today? (The mind wonders at how much room there might be to go, pressed absolutely against the radical left as the Dems are today.)
If a defeat makes the grownups and the rank & file amongst Democrats begin to question their incredibly naive and destructive foreign policy positions, and reject once and for all the Vietnam contingent from within their midst, then I think that would be an incredibly positive development for them. They might continue to be as liberal, as leftist, and as wrongheaded (in my view, of course) on matters domestic, while still joining with the Republicans in insisting on defending America, making moral judgments about the world, and defending freedom and our way of life without apology. I and millions of other Americans might finally be able to decide that this or that candidate’s views on social security and same sex marriage are more in line with my own without worrying that he would immediately surrender the country to the Islamists and bring back the Bad Old Carterite Days.
Mark Steyn writes over at The Corner that the stakes for the Dems are much higher in this election than for the Republicans:
What’s the best that could happen to the Democrats?
Obama wins. History is made. In the dazzling sheen of his Kennedyesque glamour, no-one will dare obstruct his transformative reforms.
What’s the worst?
Hillary manages to deny him the nomination, or he gets it but loses on a McGovernite scale. Traumatic meltdown, bitterness, civil war in the party, etc, leading perhaps to the sundering of key elements of the Dem coalition.
Whereas for the Republicans, whether we win or lose with McCain, the party itself will continue its gradual decline as it is all out of ideological gas.
Well, I don’t know if the GOP is out of gas or not, but I do think there is another possibility for the Dems:
Obama wins. History is made. In the dazzling sheen of his Kennedyesque glamour, no-one will dare obstruct his transformative reforms. He implements his policies. American people wake up to realize that they have signed up for domestic socialism coupled to voluntary international emasculation, all to benefit the unions, special interest groups, and the race industry. Iran finally develops nuclear weapons, the economy tanks under taxes and regulations not seen since the 70′s, and terrorists go on a rampage emboldened by the defeat of the Great Satan by Allah the Almighty. Dems suffer catastrophic electoral defeat in 2010 and are forever tainted in American politics.
So there is a third possible outcome after all.
Buried in the story about the brouhaha at U.Penn’s clashing endorsements, I find this telling quote:
Meanwhile, the joint Obama letter — signed by the student body presidents of Penn, Temple and Villanova Universities and Haverford College — takes pains to “note that we are speaking on behalf of our own views as prominent student leaders at our institutions, not on behalf of the student body or our student government,” even as it begins with the line, “We, the student government leaders of schools in the Philadelphia region….”
The letter’s argument hinges on Obama’s plans to expand access to higher education: “Barack’s plan to address the concern of financial assistance for higher education particularly resonates with us. His plans to simplify the application process for financial aid, expand Pell Grants to low-income students, streamline Direct Loans for students and create the American Opportunity Tax Credit are critical in truly making higher education available to any American who wants to go to college.”
Well then, apparently, everyone is a special interest group. When privileged college students at Ivy League schools support a candidate because he promises them handouts from the federal trough… I suppose we’ve seen the beginning of the end for the American republic.
This is especially laughable coming from Penn, Haverford, and Villanova students who are paying roughly $30K a year to attend these private schools. If they honestly believed that the lack of government handouts for students is the reason why people aren’t all going to college, then they ought to give up their places at these high-cost schools and hie themselves to the nearest State U, or better yet, nearest community college.
Privileged, pretentious jerkoffs prescribing government medication for the poor and underprivileged… that habit of nobility which Obama embodies so well is being taught well and early apparently in our schools.
Normally, one doesn’t expect to find things like this on a politically liberal technology-oriented site, but TED.com has a great presentation from Paul Koontz with photos and commentary about North Korea. I highly recommend it.
Apparently, many of the photos were taken on the sly, as Paul and his family were watched pretty carefully.
I couldn’t help but wonder what images Paul would have brought back if he had been allowed, like an actual tourist, to go visit other parts of the country besides Pyongyang and other places westerners are allowed to travel.
For those who still don’t know (although I highly doubt that anyone is not aware of Michael Yon and yet is visiting this little blog on the corner of the web), Michael Yon is a national treasure as it comes to reporting facts from the ground in Iraq. Although many of us on the Right like Michael, I don’t get the sense from his writing/reporting that he’s particularly partisan about anything. He was pretty brutal in his criticism of the Bush Administration’s pre-surge strategy, and he continues to be critical about its actions (or lack thereof) in Afghanistan, for example.
I think he is one of the few sources of actual information, actual news, presented in as bias-neutral way as possible today. Those who get their news only from CNN, NYT, and the rest of the MSM simply do not have the facts necessary to form an educated opinion. Bookmark his site; visit it often.
He has a new book out, called Moment of Truth in Iraq. I’ve ordered it, and I just want to encourage everyone to support Michael. He’s providing a real service to Truth, Justice and the American Way.