Note: The first entry was sent last night.
And a very good morning to you, Joe,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponNot transformational?! Not transformational?!? What George Bush did last night was reshape the foreign policy of the most powerful nation in the history of the world, defining America's mission in noble and ambitious terms, declaring war on the pre-eminent evil ideology of the 21st century. And you think that wasn't transformational? And that's not all. He laid the groundwork for building a permanent Republican majority. In the middle third of the speech, which I thought was dull and rote, Bush articulated the orthodox Republican themes that guarantee you 40 percent of the electorate. But in the first and last third, in which he played all the McCainiac themes—patriotic mission abroad, service beyond your self-interest at home—Bush appealed to the middle 20 percent of the electorate that has been floating around waiting to be grabbed. In his Democratic response, by contrast, Gephardt was utterly orthodox. He did nothing to reach beyond the 40 percent of the electorate that is always going to vote Democrat.
The foreign policy section of the speech was dramatic. As you well know, there has been a debate roiling in this country between realists and idealists. The realists fear that we will overstretch. They believe in defining our national interest in limited terms. They're against nation-building and going off trying to spread democracy around the world. The idealists believe what is says in the Declaration. That all human beings are born with inalienable rights. They believe it is in our interests to spread democracy because bourgeois democratic nations by and large don't breed poisonous ideological groups that threaten American lives.
Bush 2000 was firmly in the realist camp. Bush 2002 is firmly in the idealist camp. If the Bushies were true to their principles they would name my colleagues Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol co-secretaries of state because what they have been writing for years is what Bush is saying now.
Bush clearly sees Sept. 11 as the tip of a big and dangerous iceberg. He has embraced some version of the view, which comes in Chris Hitchens, Ian Buruma, Bernard Lewis, and Daniel Pipes forms, that the radical Islamicists represent an ideology that is irreparably hostile to civilized society and all it stands for. Do I gather from your message that you don't? You say Iran and Iraq are working on weapons of mass destruction mostly to deter each other and maybe Israel. Do you think that they are just local powers vying for a little more power, territory, and prestige?
I really think the evidence points otherwise. Many of the radical Islamicists seem to me motivated by a faith that is beyond the realpolitik calculus of normal power-seeking. Saddam is a separate case since he's not a religious nut, simply a megalomaniac. But he has forgone more than $150 billion in oil revenues over the past years so he can keep his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. I would say that one of the lessons of Sept. 11 is that if some evil man says he is going to kill you, if he spends his treasure building up weapons he can use to kill you, and if he develops plans for how he is going to kill you, then it is not foolish to consider the possibility that he may actually try to kill you.
Last night Bush practically declared war on Iraq, and he put a chill into the spines of those in Iran. He bravely named Hamas and Hezbollah as members of this terror axis (I'm sure they were spitting up their brandies over at the State Department). I think Bush has seen the menace for what it is and laid out a vision for fighting it.
There's a word for that: Transformational.
Best,
David
What Obama Meant—and Didn't Mean—About "Beginning" To Withdraw in July 2011
49 Million Americans Are Hungry. What Can You Do To Help? 
Admit It, Dems: These Reform Bills Won't Control Health Care Costs
Parks and Recreation Is Now Better Than 30 Rock and The Office
Lithwick: The Supreme Court's Best Beach-House Case Ever
The Economic Reports About Christmas Shopping Are Confusing, Contradictory, and Useless
Wednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)