George Will on Wolfowitz

Last week John Derbyshire wrote a pretty persuasive column entitled The Twilight of Conservatism, in which the most arresting comment was probably in parenthesis at the end of this paragraph:

"Our country was attacked by a terrorist conspiracy well supported by, and well funded from, the wealthy and populous Muslim Middle East. All sorts of things flowed from that, including necessary expansions of government power and expenditure. (Though whether a $300 billion experiment in Wilsonian nation-building was really necessary is a question I shall leave to another time.)"

It really stuck with me, as that was my general feeling up until, perhaps even a little after the war began. After a little while I was more and more persuaded that the war was largely a noble endeavor on behalf of a badly stricken population, even as the failure to find WMD seemed to have been proved it unnecessary. The elections clinched it, despite all the problems.

Anyway, I was very glad to see George Will's column on Wolfowitz this morning, in which he quotes the deputy secretary of defense: "I can't tell you," Paul Wolfowitz says with justifiable asperity, "how much I resent being called a Wilsonian."

That's the lead-off. The rest of the column is a solid review of the realpolitik that governed U.S. policy in the 70's and 80's, however controversial it was at home. Will ranges between subjects as diverse as the Philippines, Tomahawk missles, the invasion of Kuwait, Leo Strauss and even Saul Bellow to make the point that Wolfowitz's advancement of policies for almost 40 years has been in the defense of the national interest rather than pie-in-the-sky ideals that cost much and deliver nothing. And, come to think of it, the 'exportation of democracy' notwithstanding, how do Wolfowitz's opinions have anything to do with the League of Nations?

The Twilight of Conservatism

James Wolcott's Southern Discomfort

Kathryn Jean Lopez (somewhat sarcastically) noted Wolcott's comments about the NRO fundraiser in Atlanta last night, and then Jonah Goldberg posted a yawn and Warren Bell's added a comment of his own.

I've always kind of liked Wolcott. He's witty and obviously a pretty smart guy, and on top of that he's written a pretty good novel, 'The Catsitters." So I thought I'd check out the comments on his website myself. I was a little surprised to read imagined scenarios of Jonah vomiting under a table and whatnot, but hey, envisioning Derbyshire with his arm around a Hooters waitress is sort of funny, in a school newspaper sorta way. Then I read another piece with comments about a Bill Kristol segment on Fox, and was floored when I saw him going out of his way to write about NRO:

"K'Lo at NRO, who had Richter-scale hills-are-alive-with-the-sound-of-music orgasms when a new Pope was picked, admitted she was watching the prez with only casual attention last night, and this morning had little to add, relying on a reader email from some limp noodle. . ."

Yeesh. I wish he'd write more novels.

An Adult Approach...

Good article by Kathyrn Jean Lopez on the relatively barren nature of embryonic stem cells research as opposed to the more fruitful science involved in adult stem cell research. What I think may be more to the point is the extent to which greed takes over the debate.

For example, read this money quote from The Mercury News:

"The stem-cell institute was created by the statewide initiative, Proposition 71, which voters approved in November. Under it, the institute will pass out $3 billion for stem-cell research over the next 10 years. Much of the money is slated for studies on human embryonic stem cells, an area of research that has been extremely limited by federal law."

Read entire article is here.

On the national level the stakes will get even higher. In the coming years there will be tremendous political pressure put on our political leaders to deliver funding under the promise of miracles, for which as yet there really is no scientific basis.

Investment Accounts for Me, but Not for Thee

This paragraph says it all:

"So why does Senator Kennedy want to deny workers the same ownership rights and higher returns that he enjoys? Because he knows such ownership will change people's policy preferences. If the value of retirement nest eggs were tightly linked to individual earnings and long-term stock-market performance, people would demand a freer economy to pump up economic growth and stock performance. Freer markets deflate Big Government, which threatens the Left — but freer markets pay off handsomely for the individual."

The same could be said about so many programs championed by the left. Senator Kennedy would doubtless favor a National Health Care plan, but would he ever use it?