Does James Bowman really mean to suggest that the “conservative” alternatives have now shrunk to only two, namely, the cheerful and forward-looking neocons and the nativist (if not worse), anti-free trade paleocons? Boy, if there is anything that would send me looking for a Third Way, Bowman has hit on it.p>I could go on at length about the issues I have with Pat Buchanan and those who think (if that is indeed what they’re doing) as he does. But Bowman’s notion that my only realistic choice is to sign on board with the neoconservatives leaves me cold. (May I mention here that I am delighted to be a subscriber both to The American Spectator and The Weekly Standard .) I welcome Irving Kristol’s cheerfulness, optimism and recognition of the important role that America plays, and must play, in the world. And yet I worry about his relative lack of interest in long-standing conservative precepts of limited government and economic liberalism. I’m still trying to figure out how Kristol can speak approvingly of the centralization of national power, even while he distrusts the very same thing in supra-national arenas. If an all-powerful central government is good for the country, pray tell why such a thing wouldn’t be just fine for the whole world? br> — Leighton M. Anderson br> Whittier, CA /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online