The Spectacle Blog
Instapundit has a good round-up of reactions the the Muslim Street's latest hissyfit. I particularly like Jacob T. Levy's contribution, drawing the distinction between a political leader, who of course shouldn't be in the business of judging which religion is right, and a Pope, who absolutely must be in that business. The problem, of course, is that much of the Muslim world doesn't accept this distinction. And note Levy's footnote:
*(And therefore, in religious substance, the speech is a much more serious attack on various kinds of Protestantism, including the President's, than it is on Islam; the status of reason and philosophy in Islam is complicated and contested, whereas in the personal-revelation brands of Protestantism it's pretty much dismissed.)And yet you don't see too many Evangelical Christians burning Benedict in effigy on CNN, do you?
Various and sundry Muslims are in a tizzy about Benedict's treatment of violence, Islam, and logos (that is, reason in faith). But the content of the Pope's discussion has won positive reviews from people as far apart doctrinally as paleocons and A. Sullivan.
It all suggests in heavy tones that there's a real issue here, and the scattershot offended reactions coming out of places like Turkey and Lebanon and from organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood reflect a general confusion over the danger of freely and frankly discussing identity today. Benedict's words are felt by turns to be insulting, dangerous, Crusaderist -- or so it would seem if you take the content of the backlash at face value. Don't. Here's my take on why.
Shortly after Hamas's landslide victory in January's Palestinian elections, I predicted that a Hamas leader would one day win the Nobel Peace Prize. This is starting to seem more and more likely.
European Union foreign ministers agreed on Friday to back a Palestinian national unity government being formed by President Mahmoud Abbas with the Hamas Islamist movement, despite
WASHINGTON - Consumer confidence zoomed to a seven-month high as lower gasoline prices made people feel a lot better about the current economic climate and their own financial standing.Meanwhile, Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows President Bush's approval ratings peaking due to "resurgence of support among the President's base." I doubt they'll break yesterday's high of 47% -- one would expect the anniversary of 9/11 the be Bush's best day of the fall -- but the new burst of economic good feelings could easily give Bush a higher floor than he's had in recent months. If that trend lasts through election day, that's got to have some effect on the results.
Phil: The line you quote from Ramesh's op-ed bothered me a bit. The implication that the 1992 loss lead directly to the Contract With America approach to the '94 campaign is unfaithful to the actual history of how the Contract came about. Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey were lobbying for something like the '94 campaign from the mid-80s on, carefully shaping and reshaping an agenda that was both economically conservative at its core and made up of planks that were popular enough that most Republican candidates were willing to sign onto it. Maybe the Republican Study Committee has a similar ongoing effort underway, but unless Mike Pence and his allies are positioned to capture the leadership in the wake of a loss it's hard to see how we can count on such an agenda going anywhere.
Phil: Let me give a preview of my column next week: These folks are also over-selling the benefits of having the Dems run the House.
Jonah Goldberg joins the list of conservatives who see a bright side to Republicans losing control of Congress this year. I cannot think of one good reason why Republicans deserve to win this year, but at the same time I wonder whether Republicans losing Congress would have the long-term positive effect on the party that conservatives hope it would. In my view, the most compelling argument for a Republican loss is the hope that if they lose because of a drop-off in turnout among conservatives, they wouldn't take conservative voters for granted in the future. But there's also just as much of a risk of them turning to the left in response to a defeat. Ramesh Ponnuru addressed this fear in his NY Times piece earlier in the week: