Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Miers on the courts and social issues
I’m still chewing this speech and this speech over. My first response is not to be impressed by the clarity of the thought and to be a little disturbed by some of the opinions expressed. I’ll have more later. In the meantime, you can read this WaPo story.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/26/2005 7:43 AM
|
|
Thucydides and Us, Take 2
I’ve elaborated on this post in this column. I’ll leave you, dear readers, to judge whether the elaboration is an improvement. While you’re at it, you might take a look at this piece by Victor Davis Hanson from last week’s LAT.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/25/2005 11:17 PM
|
|
More Galston/Kamarck
James Pinkerton highlights the role of religion in Galston and Kamarck’s "The Politics of Polarization." Noting a recent visit by evangelist Joel Osteen to the New York metro area, he observes that, while Osteen is "entirely apolitical," it is hard to overlook the potential political consequences of the faith-based worldview he is promoting. Since Osteen’s New York metro audience is two-thirds African-American and Hispanic, this is bad news for Democrats, if they cannot overcome the well-documented public perception that they are hostile to religion.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [48] | 10/25/2005 12:16 PM
|
|
Joke
One afternoon a wealthy lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw
two men along the roadside eating grass. Disturbed, he ordered his
driver to stop and he got out to investigate.
He asked one man, "Why are you eating grass?"
We don’t have any money for food," the poor man replied. "We have to eat
grass."
"Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I’ll feed you," the
lawyer said. "But, sir! I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there,
under that tree"
"Bring them along," the lawyer replied. Turning to the other poor man he
stated, "You come with us also."
The second man, in a pitiful voice then said, "But sir, I also have a
wife
and SIX children with me!"
"Bring them all, as well," the lawyer answered.
They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as
large
as
the limousine was. Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the
lawyer and said, "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us
with you."
The lawyer replied, "Glad to do it. You’ll really love my place -- the grass is almost a foot high."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 10/24/2005 3:52 PM
|
|
Fund on Miers
This is John Fund’s take on how the Harriet Miers nomination came to be, and how it was botched. Not a pretty story, if true. Near the end of his piece he says: "I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/24/2005 11:29 AM
|
|
Stitching Shakespeare
John Simon elegantly notes that because we know so little about the life of Shakespeare, his life requires some stitching. He thinks that the authors of the two books he is reviewing are handy with the needle and therefore calls them "sartorial successes."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/23/2005 6:00 PM
|
|
Harriet Miers will withdraw
I now have an opinion on what will happen with Harriet Miers: She will withdraw her nomination before the start of the Judiciary Committee hearings. This opinion is not based on the latest George Will column that explains why she cannot be defended, nor is it based on my discovery of the tacky Harriet Miers’s Blog. My opinion is based on overhearing private conversations (i.e., reading between the lines in press reports), getting a sense of her declining fortunes from Senators and staffers who have been inclined to support her, and my visit to the local watering hole last night.
Even overlooking the congenital anti-Bush bias in the MSM, press reports make clear that the more would-be-defenders of Miers get to know her (visits to their offices, reading responses to written questions, etc.), the less they like her. This is supported by private, off-the-record opinions I get a whiff of now and then indicating that almost everyone who has had dealings with her during the last few weeks has come to regret that she has been nominated. And, if she doesn’t withdraw, this negative opinion will come to a peak during the Judiciary Committee hearings, to everyone’s huge embarrassment. Since neither political interest nor honor will not allow this to happen, she will not make it to the scheduled hearings.
My second reason for thinking that she will withdraw is the sampling of the opinion of local citizens, culminating in last night’s visit to the tavern. I haven’t been to O’Brian’s since July (the department had dinner with James Muller; I had a steak and drank water, by the way) and last night had the opportunity to sample the opinion of a number of people who came by to say they were glad to see me alive and so on. These are good, conservative, Republican folks, always giving Bush the benefit of the doubt; trusting Bush. Not this time. They have become convinced that this nomination is a huge mistake and their thoughtful conversation convinced me that they are right: the best thing Bush can do is to ask her to withdraw because she has no support. I was a bit surprised how deliberate and thoughtful their logic was; neither bitter nor vengeful, just the common sense of the subject. One man, a Marine, said this was like a bad love affair: the more you got to know Miers, the less you liked her. Very clarifying, I thought. It’s over. Never mind the justice of the thing. It’s over. Now the only thing left is for either Bush or Meirs to find a graceful way out. Perhaps
this will help.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [120] | 10/23/2005 1:01 PM
|
|
2006 = 1994?
That’s the burden of this article, though it does contain a few hedges like this one: "It’s not as easy as it looks," said former representative Robert S. Walker (Pa.). Walker sees plenty of parallels between his crowd of 1994 GOP House revolutionaries and the young Democrats, but he notes that the Republicans started laying the groundwork for their takeover in the early 1980s, at least a decade before their electoral coup. "I can understand why people say an opportunity is presenting itself," Walker said. "But it does take more than a couple of election cycles to change things."
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/23/2005 7:30 AM
|
|
Thucydides and us
It’s hard to avoid thinking about our current conflicts when teaching Thucydides, as I do every fall. I wrote explicitly about it once and implicitly another time (no link, but if you want a copy of the essay, shoot me an email). Victor Davis Hanson can, of course, write much more authoritatively on this subject than I can, and Paul Johnson is the kind of reviewer he deserves. Here’s one provocative thought (mine, not Johnson’s or Hanson’s), which I advance very tentatively and with great trepidation (I’m not sure how much I believe it myself): Perikles urges the Athenians to accept the challenge of the Spartans and their allies, and recommends that they cautiously wage a long war of attrition. Such a strategy requires that Athens rein in the dynamism that seems to be its leading civic feature. And it requires the authoritative leadership of someone like Perikles. But Thucydides notes that Perikles (predictably) didn’t live long enough to see his policy bear fruit, and that (predictably) his successors lacked his stature, self-restraint, and capacity for identifying his good with the city’s good. Hence there were blunders, among them (allegedly and most famously) the Sicilian Expedition. Of course, Thucydides notes that the problem with the expedition was not its object, but rather the way in which Athenian domestic politics affected and afflicted its execution. From these considerations, two thoughts follow. First, Perikles’ caution was actually imprudent and incautious, since the policy he recommended was one that only he could execute, which in turn required that he live a preternaturally long life. Second, if the war was necessary (a big "if," of course, albeit apparently not to Thucydides or Perikles), a bold stroke early (like the Sicilian Expedition) could so have altered the military balance that Athens could have prevailed against its Peloponnesian adversaries. Unlike his successors, Perikles had the stature to manage matters at home so as to avoid the distractions that ultimately doomed the expedition. And now for the contemporary application. The GWOT has been advertised since its inception as a long-term struggle. Almost everyone who still supports George W. Bush admires his resolve in waging that war. The question that has to be on everyone’s mind is whether GWB’s successors will be as serious about it. I can think of a few who might be, but of many who surely wouldn’t be. Under the circumstances, isn’t the Iraq war the rough (very rough) equivalent of the Sicilian Expedition, albeit for different reasons than the ones usually cited (e.g., evidence of imperial overweening, a distraction from the main conflict, and so on)? One could present it as the kind of bold and risky stroke that, if successful (a big "if," to be sure), so changes the constellation of forces that the long-term disciplined struggle (hard for any democracy under any circumstances) becomes somewhat easier to manage (I hesitate to say "less necessary"). In other words, if one of the lessons of Thucydides is that a dynamic global democracy cannot consistently or easily pursue a disciplined policy, then a leader who has the opportunity to change the constellation of forces so as to render consistency and self-discipline somewhat less crucial ought to do so. A democracy that has global responsibilities, concerns, and interests must be bold. Or else it should draw in its horns altogether, and put itself at the mercy of forces it has willed to be beyond its control, whether they are or not. No one should expect that those forces be anything other than merciless, regardless of the benignity of our aspect. Any thoughts?
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [14] | 10/22/2005 10:54 PM
|
|
Trafalgar
The Battle of Trafalgar, the death of Admiral Horatio Nelson (killed by a French sniper on the day of victory), 200 years ago. The end of Napoleon, the start of 100 years of British dominated peace. Still exciting stuff.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [6] | 10/22/2005 1:04 PM
|
|
Bush as conservative
Unlike some, Jonah Goldberg is not quite ready to read George W. Bush out of the conservative movement. One wishes--O.K., I wish--Goldberg had more to say about how GWB’s evangelicalism interacts with his conservatism. Bush is clearly not a libertarian (not even a quasi- or proto-libertarian), nor is he a Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, or Anglican Tory traditionalist. So he doesn’t fit the categories with which libertarians or Kirkians--or fusionists, for that matter--are most comfortable. And he’s not simply a neo-conservative (to the extent that that category is reserved either for ex-liberals, Jews, and/or largely secular intellectuals who respect religion). Many--not all, as Jim Wallis keeps telling us--evangelicals are socially and morally "traditionalist," but their emphasis on the individual believer’s encounter with Scripture cuts against the grain of traditional authority structures, whether religious or "secular." And while there is an emphasis on personal responsibility, it often (albeit not always) looks toward a community in ways that libertarianism does not. Does anyone have a convenient label for this? Update: Jonah says he’ll think about it and post over the weekend. Stay tuned, both here and at NRO’s The Corner.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [35] | 10/21/2005 11:27 AM
|
|
Katrina "vouchers" revisited
Ted Kennedy supports them, but, er, technically they’re not vouchers. He’s right (yes, you read that correctly); he and his Senate colleagues a proposing a voucher-like form of per capita aid to public and private schools that have taken in Katrina victims. However "temporary" and "pragmatic" this proposal is, Kennedy is conceding the high ground to proponents of school choice. I’m happy; Barry Lynn of Americans United is apoplectic. I wonder if his organization will take the politically unpalatable step of filing a lawsuit against a program to aid Katrina victims.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 10/21/2005 6:42 AM
|
|
My health
I was up at the Cleveland Clinic last Thursday and Friday for some blood tests and a CAT Scan. The results are in: The doctor said that for now "no treatment is needed." He’ll do another scan in six months. So, I am OK! And fifty pounds lighter, remembering to take my pills, can’t eat anything that tastes good, no cigarettes, no alcohol, but I’m OK, no surgery is needed and I am almost at full strength. Walked by my bike this morning and thought about dusting it off… not yet, but now I know I can. Thanks to everyone for your good wishes.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [6] | 10/20/2005 4:20 PM
|
|
The faith-based initiative and the First Amendment
The WaPo’s Alan Cooperman fairly summarizes the status of various lawsuits, one a victory for the co-religionist exemption in hiring, another a preliminary defeat for aid to a religious school in Alaska, and another--just about to go to trial--about a faith-based prison program.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments | 10/20/2005 7:42 AM
|
|
John Tierney on academic politics
Power Line’s John Hinderaker call our attention to this column by the NYT’s John Tierney (taken in this case from the Minneapolis paper, since Tierney is behind the Times Select barrier over at the NYT site). Tierney doesn’t break any new ground, but he goes over the existing discussion of the professoriate’s leftward tilt very well.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/20/2005 7:35 AM
|
|
