Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Bob Dylan no longer "tangled up in blue"...
Ignatius Boone sent me this note on Bob Dylan. It is based on a book a review in the Los Angeles Times (not available on line). Enjoy it.
OK, you aging Baby-Boom Conservatives, and baby-boom
high-achiever babies. You’ve known since 1980 that one thing only was
needed for a re-alignment in American politics and culture to be
consummated: Conservatives and conservatism must come to be seen as
"cool." But despite Dinesh D’Souza, Bobos, Ann Coulter, and Ahnold,
"cool" was as elusive for conservatives as the dead on arrival (and
departure) meanings of Jacques Derrida--RIP.
Now comes Bob Dylan--of all people--to the rescue. I haven’t
read the first volume of his autobiographical "Chronicles," just out,
but a review by Timothy Ferris in today’s LA Times quotes some culture
shifting lines that almost make me want to revisit the Sixties. A few
samples:
Aside from reporting that he was a fan of Ricky Nelson, the
Kingston Trio, Moon River, and wrestler Gorgeous George, Dylan puts in a
plug for consumerism, prime time television, and money-making. But
that’s just on the surface. As Ferris writes, Dylan "once dreamed of
graduating from West Point and dying gloriously in battle, and that he
raised his children to respect ’America, the country of freedom and
independence.’" Then--straight to the heart of the re-alignment, with
the pith of an American poet: "His favorite politician was Barry
Goldwater, ’who reminded me of Tom Mix.’"
But not quite to the deep American heart. To get his legs as a
young singer-songwriter, Dylan "started hanging out in an upstairs
reading room of the New York Public Library, reading hundreds of daily
newspapers, circa 1855-1865, on microfilm. The Civil War, when ’America
was put on the cross, died, and was resurrected . . . would be the
all-encompassing template behind everything that I would write.’"
So this Goldwater-, cowboy-, Lincoln-loving patriot-bard, out to
make an honest or dishonest buck, like any decent American, is
"[u]nwillingly dubbed the spokesman for his generation," and no matter
where he tries to hide, finds himself deluged by ’"gangs of dropouts and
druggies . . . [m]oochers . . . [g]oons . . . rogue radicals . . .
scarecrows, [and] stragglers’" from "all fifty states," and does what?
The obvious, all-American thing: he arms himself to the teeth! "with a
brace of repeater pistols and a clip-fed Winchester." ’"I wanted to set
fire to those people.’" But, of course, he is confronted with the sad
dilemma of all the true-blue Second Amendment faithful: The local chief
of police tells him that if there’s any shooting, "’it would be me that
would be going to the lock-up.’"
All right, so a little Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill sneak into
his repertoire--what are you: Platonists!? And besides, showing like a
true poet that he sees what everyone sees, but sees it first and more
clearly, Dylan records that even back when Dan Rather was a pup, he knew
what to think of the MSM: "’The press?’ he writes. ’I figured you lie
to it.’"
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/11/2004 10:57 AM
|
|
French Military on the March
Well, sort of. They’re taking part in a parade marking the Dia de la Hispanidad--a sort of Spanish version of Columbus Day. But, as John Miller points out in his NY Post article, the American Marines have been uninvited from participating in the event:
Three years ago, in a gesture of solidarity following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Spain asked the Marines to take part in this annual celebration. They were invited back in 2002 and 2003. It looked like a new tradition was in the making.
But Spain’s prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has put a stop to that. "What does not continue," explained Defense Minister Jose Bono, "is subordination and getting down on our knees on orders from a foreign government."
Miller notes that "the United States has not ordered Spain to do anything — and that includes sending troops to Iraq last year . . . ." If there was any question after the Spanish retreat precipitated by the Madrid bombings, I think we can now say with confidence that Spain has joined the pusillanimous chorus that is Old Europe.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/11/2004 11:14 AM
|
|
Kerry’s foreign policy
Here is Matt Bai’s long article published in The New York Times Magazine on Kerry’s foreign policy. It is very much worth reading, for it reveals more than it hides. And this is the Belmont Club’s take on it. As usual, very thoughtful. I like these two paragraphs:
"Bai’s article reminds me of one of those products which are described on the packaging as being a new space age, high-technology, portable illumination aid which on closer inspection turns out to be a flashlight. When the newfangled description of terrorism as a ’blended threat’ is subtracted, the entire program consists of the policies of the late 1990s. Bilateral talks with North Korea. Oslo. G-8. The United Nations. Warrants of arrest. Extradition requests. Not a single new element in the entire package, except the fancy rationale. There is nothing wrong with that, any more than there is anything objectionable about a flashlight, but a more candid characterization of Kerry’s proposals is not a voyage into uncharted waters so much as return to the world of September 10; in Kerry’s words ’back to the place we were’. It has the virtue of producing known results, and suffers only from the defect that those results do not include being able to prevent massive attacks on the American mainland.
Kerry’s world, in a way, is where one goes if George Bush’s vision proves false: the frying pan, as a place of refuge if one lands in the fire. As a negative vision it will always hold some attractions; which will grow in proportion to failures in the Global War on Terror and fade in proportion to its successes. Roger Simon succinctly described Bai’s article as a plea to return to ’business as usual’, a call to the past from ’the ultimate conservative’. It is heartbreakingly pathetic in its own way." 
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/11/2004 10:53 AM
|
|
The Nuisance of Terrorism
James Lileks, in a typical installment of the "Bleat"--typical in the sense that it leaps about from topic to topic--offers a witty but dead-on assessment of Kerry’s stated desire to get back to the days when terrorism was merely "a nuisance": A nuisance? I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.” I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.” I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government. I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent. Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn’t a nuisance. It’s war. As Lileks reminds us, the days when terrorism was a nuisance were the days when we were losing.
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/11/2004 8:13 AM
|
|
Kerry Blows the Second Debate
So claims William Saletan of Slate in his recent article. His article is largely an attempt to do what many of us would like to do--offer what "better" answers to debate questions on behalf of our respective candidates. In his case, the candidate of choice is Mr. Kerry. It is nonetheless interesting to note his belief that Bush won the debate--a sentiment with which I agree. We will see if the over-the-weekend polls reflect this belief as well.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [245] | 10/10/2004 7:54 PM
|
|
Derrida is dead
The Parisian Heidegerrian Jacques Derrida has died. I’m tempted to deconstruct this, but I’ll just leave it as a postcard since my intention wouldn’t control the reading of the text. It would be the metaphysical illusion. Deconstruction is justice, Derrida said. I say Derrida isn’t even a trace; and that’s the truth.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [208] | 10/9/2004 4:51 PM
|
|
Kerry and Potter Stewart
Ken Masugi has a good note on Kerry’s use of Justice Potter Stewart as an example of the kind of Justice he would like to appoint to the Supremes.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/9/2004 12:12 PM
|
|
Australia and us
The Belmont Club nails down the meaning and the importance of the Australian election. It appears that John Howard has by 52-47% (with circa 75% of the votes tallied), and this means that his majority will have increased. The Belmont Club explains why this proves the "depleted nature of Leftist politics." It looks as though Labor has lost ground to the Greens and they are relying on personalities or messengers rather than a message. That is, look at today’s (and tomorrow’s) U.S. Demnocratic Party). And then this, with obvious relevance to us:
"The really horrifying thing about Howard’s victory for Labor is that it proves that packaging and spin are ultimately dead ends. It is a cul-de-sac lined with klieg lights and celebrity occasions, but there is no exit all the same because it is the platform of the Labor party that is rotten. The hodge-podge of wacky environmentalists, professional victims, special sexual pleaders etc. have laid a dead hand on attempts to regard any issue, like the War on Terror, with anything approaching common sense. How else to explain why Labor should offer a country of 20 million people, living in close proximity to Indonesia, the chance to downgrade their alliance with the United States.
"If the Left were thinking clearly, it would realize that the single most striking aspect of George W. Bush is how ordinary he is. There is nothing in his strategy to combat terrorism beyond a refined common sense. He represents a threat to Liberalism for precisely the reason that an everyman reacting to an extraordinary historical challenge imperils kings and hereditary elites: the prospect he may discove by success in action that royalty with its cant and obscurantism is no better than he."
"Let’s welcome back on to the world stage the man deemed intellectually inferior to all his Labor opponents; a person said to be singularly lacking in refinement and bereft of nuance. The man who for nearly ten years beat them all and has won another term. Australian Prime Minister John Howard."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [216] | 10/9/2004 11:56 AM
|
|
Howard Wins in Australia
This just in from CNN: Australia has returned incumbent Prime Minister John Howard for a fourth consecutive term of government, probably with an increased majority in the Parliament. As Australia was a partner in the Iraq War, this cannot help but augur well for Bush’s chances in November.
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/9/2004 8:13 AM
|
|
Who’s afraid of Kerry’s tax plan?
Did anyone else catch the arrogance in Kerry’s remark to the audience that the only people in that room who would be affected by his tax plan were himself, the President, and Charles Gibson? Does he have some magic powers that allow him to determine a person’s annual income just by looking him over? The nerve of him! Well, he does have an uncanny ability to zero in on rich women. Bush did a good job explaining how rolling back the tax cuts would hurt the middle class--even if it only taxed people making over $200,000. But more can be said on that. Good opportunity for political hay over the next few days.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [201] | 10/9/2004 2:40 AM
|
|
Bush wins this one
There is no question that Bush won this one. He was clear lucid, clearly thinking aloud, rather than repeating old lines, which is what Kerry did. Kerry was too forward, a bit too in-your-face mode, lecturing, if not hectoring Bush. It wasn’t to Kerry’s advantage. The format was perfect for Bush. I am also pleased that Bush called him a Liberal, rather than simply a fli-flopper. I loved his clarity regarding abortion and the (complex) stem cell issue. Kerry, on the other hand, twisted and turned. Advantage Bush, and it should be reflected in the polls next week.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [220] | 10/8/2004 11:14 PM
|
|
Ironies and immaturities
Now that Ms. Heinz-Kerry has revealed on the Dr. Phil show that the secret to marital happiness is for women to understand and appreciate that all men are really just little boys (about that, volumes might be said) perhaps the ironies and inconsistencies of the Kerry foreign policy might be better understood as immaturities. Prudence in politics requires a level of maturity that can accept and understand priorities and inconsistencies. It aims for both the good and the possible. In every respect, Kerry lacks it. His whining in the first debate about our continued work on bunker-busting nuclear technology while we condemn other nations for their nuclear programs is only one, very glaring, example of this immaturity. Everyone should understand that John Kerry is like the very clever student who catches on to facts and information so quickly that he never has time to chew on it. You would not describe this student as insightful because his opinions consist entirely of weighing and measuring disconnected bits of information with no unifying theme. His speed at aquiring this information has earned him praise as a boy and breeded arrogance in the man. His ability to reason has never matured. He sees nothing higher than his own clever wit. He cannot think long and he cannot think deep. Combine this lack of mental exercise with the prevailing moral relativism and you begin to understand why the young Kerry who could not see that a loss in Vietnam was only one step toward winning the larger Cold War is the same Kerry who sees no connection between a global war on Islamo-fascist terrorism and our efforts in Iraq. The action in Iraq is mistakenly called a war--it is really a battle. Kerry will never understand that. He’s too enchanted by his ability to point out that there is no known connection between Iraq and 9/11. He’s not a September 10, 2001 American . . . he’s a December 6, 1941 American.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/8/2004 3:09 PM
|
|
Bremer’s response
L. Paul Bremer writes an op-ed for The New York Times. Note a few items: "The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president’s strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush." And the last two paragraphs:
"Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
"A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision."
By the way, Bremer will giving the first annual Michael G. Oxley lecture in Manfield on October 21. Tickets are available.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/8/2004 8:40 AM
|
|
The Americanization of God
Christopher Levenick reviews three books on religion and America by George Marsden, Mark Knoll, and Richard Carwardine. Concluding paragraph: "Each of these books makes a major contribution to our understanding of America’s religious heritage, and each deserves the lavish praise it has received. Yet all three authors make an argument that perhaps says more about their modern-day sensibilities than it does about the objects of their study. They all take care to present Edwards and Lincoln as having eventually abandoned the idea that God had somehow set America apart from the rest of dreary human history. If ordinary Americans imagined themselves as a new Israel, the authors claim, better minds recognized the notion as sanctimonious vanity. Edwards, for example, speculated that only revivals in the New World could presage the millennium; Marsden finds the argument ’tortured’ and implies that Edwards later abandoned it. Similarly, because Lincoln once alluded to America as an "almost chosen people," Noll concludes that Lincoln doubted "whether America was the people of God." Carwardine likewise writes that Lincoln "distrusted" the "certainty of moral superiority" and "acute millennial consciousness" of Northern evangelicals. But there remains considerable evidence that both Edwards and Lincoln shared with their contemporaries the sense that America was called from above to great and noble things. In a day when American exceptionalism is roundly decried, it is apparently inconceivable to these authors that the keenest theological minds this land has yet produced may have shared with so many of their compatriots a deep and heartfelt faith in America."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 10/7/2004 9:52 PM
|
|
