The American Spectator

Reader Mail

The Short Goodbye

11.13.06 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 5)

ALONE AGAIN
Re: Richard Kirk's Mark Steyn Alone:

There was a time when Mark Steyn used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph newspaper with his wit, forthright views and general common sense (see "Mark Steyn Alone" by Richard Kirk). He always could be relied upon to provide a wake-up call for readers. I miss his column and his style. Not sure why he no longer contributes but in my view all we have now of the same calibre to read are Charles Moore and John Keegan, whose insight, knowledge and research would appear even-steven. I scratch my head trying to figure out why a Conservative leaning paper such as the Daily Telegraph occasionally ties itself to the New York Times? Nevertheless, overall the venerable Telegraph is still a good broadsheet, even if Mr. Steyn has gone and even though the odd bleeding heart occasionally gets published. Its sales figures regularly trump its competitor broadsheets and the majority of readers' feedback on the majority of occasions belie the fact that our nation is moving inexorably towards a left-of-centre, taxed-to-the-hilt, state-dominated persuasion. I hope I am proved wrong in the long-term about this descent. Come back Mark Steyn.
-- Graham Constable
Oxford, England

A nice article about one of the few who have stood courageously for what's right and is thus still supportive of America's efforts in Iraq, despite seemingly tough times. Another person who deserves some similar attention from The American Spectator is the historian Victor Davis Hanson www.victorhanson.com. I'm sure you know of him as his musings are always level headed and always look at the big picture instead of the hyped news that just came across the wire. He is very similar to Steyn in his beliefs.
-- Ritchie Emmons
Boston, Massachusetts
(Editors note: See "The New Old Eco-Pessimism," by Victor Davis Hanson, in the October 2006 issue of The American Spectator.)

I've nearly finished the book, and as troubling as it is to read, I highly recommend it to everyone.

After the first fifty or so pages, after Steyn had persuasively presented the case for the demographic demise (and social welfare state suicide) of much of the West, I kept thinking (hoping) that, okay, things look pretty bleak over there, but in the next chapter, or the one after that, surely Steyn will offer some prescription(s) for how things can be turned around, how those societies can yet save themselves. And he does. Alas the people who need to hear it, and act on it, don't seem to be inclined to listen.

If the future unfolded in a predictable pattern then it would be hard not to conclude that the lights have already started going out all over The Old World. It would be very hard to maintain much hope. Yet I do, and it is rooted in, for lack of better terms, the power of progress, the miracle of modernity. When I look at the breathtaking innovations of science and technology in just the last few decades, and when I consider how swiftly most of it has been embraced by, or at least desired by, most of the rest of the world, I simply cannot believe that a society whose leaders insist that it stay firmly rooted in the Seventh Century can endure over the long term.

But that is just hope. And as Steyn compellingly contends, in the here and now, and for the foreseeable future, for much of The Old World what is actually happening doesn't offer much reason for hope.
-- C. Vail

Richard Kirk's review of Mark Steyn's "America Alone" implies that credit for the term "Eurabia" belongs to Steyn. Barring better information, which is probably out there somewhere beyond my reach, I'd give credit for popularizing the term to Bat Ye'or's prior book, Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis.
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

BROTHERS AT HEART
Re: W. James Antle III's Old Fusion?:

I score very high on the Libertarian self-test so often handed out by Libertarian Party members. Unfortunately, the two issues that make me a Conservative are never on those tests and are the center of mass for why the Libertarian Party will never hold power in this country.

The first issue is simply stated. True Liberty, as enshrined in our Constitution by our Founders is not separable from individual responsibility and accountability. The Founders of this Constitutional Republic were a pretty "libertine" group all things considered but they weren't Anarchists. Individuals that cast off all sense of responsibly for their actions and behaviors are a pox on any society and the Founders did not envision a society of individuals living like a bunch of wild animals and having no interactions or responsibilities to their fellow man. Where I part company with modern Day Libertarians on this is where you preach that self destructive human behavior is an individual right and the consequences of such aren't any burden on the rest of us. Sexual perversion in nature is rewarded with an early death. Works that way for Humans too it seems. Even animals will defend their young (and unborn) to the death. Children will be scared for life and dysfunctional when exposed to the excesses of your concept of personal liberty. Destroying the unborn to avoid the responsibility that comes with irresponsible sexual behavior is not individual liberty; it is genocide against the very Liberty you claim to defend. The Founders did not fight a war to legalize the mass murder of the unborn in return.

The second issue is more complicated. The Founders feared a standing professional military and so do I. I include a professional Police force in that same equation. The Founders preached an "isolationist" approach to foreign relations and in the context of the 18/19th centuries that worked. This is not the 18/19th century. It does not take months or in some cases years to assemble an army and threaten our very existence any longer. Our oceans do not protect us any longer from mass invasions or destruction. We do not have months to prepare for the kind of warfare that took place when this Nation was founded and it takes a decade to produce the armaments and train a functioning military force to respond to the kinds of threats that exist today. Unlike Switzerland, where possession of real military arms and training are mandated by law, we do not maintain a "militia" force today in any shape form or fashion as compared to what the Founders had in 1775. Short of a significant change in our laws and reestablishment of personal responsibility in this regard for the "common defense", it is either a large and well maintained professional military force or no defense at all. In the 18/19th century we could go it alone in world affairs. The invention of Air Power, Ballistic missiles and all sorts of WMD made that luxury invalid in a world where death for millions can arrive in less than 30 minutes without warning. Things have changed; we adapt to them or die.

On balance, Libertarians and Conservatives share more core principles found in our founding documents than most are willing to admit I think. There will always be a fringe that does not overlap. The Core principles of modern day Democrats are alien to the very core of the Constitution and what it protects yet, in the name of "liberty" Libertarians are willing to seed power to the same Democrats that will ultimately disarm them and make them a "subject" in their Kingdom of Victimism. I realize you do this based on your concept of principles. My problem with your principles is that they aren't consistent with the Founders wishes and practices. They weren't fools and wouldn't sign onto a suicide pact just to stand on what they thought were principles. You can't cherry pick the Constitution. My suggestion to Libertarians is that you need to align your principles with the spirit of the Founding documents and practices rather than trying to invent a world that does not exist if it ever existed even in the 18th century. The hangman won't care what political party you were with.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

There has long been a peculiar discomfort between conservatives and the Republican Party. The Republican party is the closest home for conservatives. At least they can be heard there. There is no forum for conservatives in the Democrat party. Indeed, one of the troubling aspects of elected Democrats is their slow but sure transformation in moving leftward once in Congress. Nearly all, whatever their conservative leanings, end up speaking the party line in time. So Republicans and conservatives are in an uneasy marriage of convenience. Long time Republicans resent the new focus brought by the conservatives and conservatives frankly detest the "me too" role Republicans have played in the past: you know, saying they are in favor of the same programs as the Democrats but also saying we should do it cheaper. In addition, Democrats increase the number and size of programs while Republican "deficit hawks" play their assigned role of "if we insist on having these programs we are going to have to raise taxes to pay for them". The Democrats give a dramatic sigh and say, "Well, if you say we have to…" (Part of the anger Democrats have had against Republicans in recent years is the latter's shift away from acting as fund raisers for the government's "drunken sailor" escapades.)

There is supposedly a war within conservatism itself between those who lead on social/moral issues and those who believe the sole focus should be smaller government and less taxes -- all other concerns be damned. This depiction is artificial in that the lion's share of conservatives have both social/moral issues and a strong belief in less taxes and government. To the extent such a division exists, social issues conservatives have to remember there is a limit to what government can do. Contrary to the old saw, we legislate morality everyday. Nonetheless, the state can't make people moral. At the same time, "smaller government" conservatives and libertarians have to remember who brought them to the dance. The smaller government crowd is notorious for its failure to produce results. For all its self depiction of being practical, smaller government folk have few successes in turning out the vote or delivering on their own promises.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Health Care, John Boehner, Bill Clinton, Television, Social Security, Environment, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, NATO, Africa, North Korea, Conservatism, Immigration, Energy, Oil