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>
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.