« Welcome to the books blog | Main | Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech That Changed America »

Comments

Edward

Well done, Jeremy.

Only one real "issue".

“I don’t because I can’t, but when you can, you should”.

I've always thought this a weak strand in the argument, and it's just not good enough or sufficiently sophisticated in its reasoning. We *can* take action against all manner of other regimes, including Zimbabwe, but it's just not on our radar. We could take action in Nepal, to ensure the slow-burn murder of the last decade doesn't continue for another. But we don't. If those on the left are apologists for regimes of mass murder, surely if we can take action and we don't, we are almost as bad?

Chad

The problem is one of extreme.

Applied to discipling a two year-old boy, the liberal would sit him down and seek to explain why the child's actions were wrong (the nurturant parent approach).

The neocon would identify that this liberal approach is misguided, weak and ineffective then take off their belt and soundly whip the child (the strict father approach).

As always, common sense is some where in the middle and this is where us conservatives who support tough action but disagree with neocon approach are ignored or falsely grouped with the liberals.

Being tough does not mean having to adopt the neocon approach, and rejecting the neocon approach does not mean having to adopt the liberal one.

Chad

typo, sorry - "disciplining"

Edward

You're spot on, in my view, Chad. My concern, and one Jeremy would probably raise too, is that unless we're clear about where we're grounded we risk drifting towards the liberal end of things.

Chad

Hi Edward,

I would call it simply "firm but fair" and I am sure most people fully understand this approach.

Goldie

I nominate Douglas Murray for the Gold List!

SimonNewman

“We are in a conflict between good and evil"

Albeit it's a decidedly imperfect 'good' (the Bush administration), vs a force of absolute evil (Al Qaeda). Many people of good will would like the Bush administration to be considerably more good (Rumsfeld) or at least competent (Rumsfeld).

SimonNewman

Interesting Paleocon piece on Iraq and the Neocon oil policy:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html

Nic Conner

You can sume up Neoconservatism by it name as it a contradiction. It simplices poltice to good guy bad guys and has a strong religious line which is not apropet to british politics. Chad is right you have to find the centrel ground and a mix with Libreltion and Consertition.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker