The American Spectator

Reader Mail

THIRD WAY CONSERVATISM
Re: James Bowman's Are We All Neocons Now?

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.

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?
-- Leighton M. Anderson
Whittier, CA

FAMILY CORRECTION
Re: "Daniel" McEnroe's letter in Reader Mail's The Fighting Spirit:

The letter attributed to my brother Daniel McEnroe under "Legionnaire's Disease" was in fact my own work; I was using his computer over the Labor Day weekend and didn't think to check the e-mail settings. While we're in agreement on this particular issue, I need to make this correction since he is a good New Yorker and thinks he would burst into flames if Ann Coulter touched him, and being found on Spectator.org might violate his lease. My bad.
-- Richard McEnroe

topics:
Trade, Conservatism