November 13, 2004

More Advice

I'm sure most Democrats are sick to death already of the unasked-for post-election advice. They've had to put up with a lot of it. No doubt the tables would have been turned had the Republicans lost.

Still, conservatives could use a little post-election advice as well. I suggest starting here.
Voting coalitions are ruled by the least commited members. So the question to the cultural conservatives is: do you want 2004 to be the Republican high water mark or would you like to extend the string.
If the right-wing culture warriors get cocky (and some of them already have) they'll rue the day. It's real simple. Here's why.
Did any of you remember Bush asking for the RINO vote in the last days of the campaign ("you may not agree with all my positions but I want your vote")? So you going to throw them off the bus now that you have won? That is not nice. People remember.
Yep.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 13, 2004 11:32 AM

Comments

“If the right-wing culture warriors get cocky (and some of them already have) they'll rue the day.”

The general public will not tolerate an ultra-Puritan public policy. Those people (like myself) who were upset with Janet Jackson’s bare breasts did so only because of the time of day. We still wish to retain the right to see Ms. Jackson unclothed after the kids have been put to bed. We may also have a problem with gay marriage, but most are willing to accept legalized gay unions. There’s an uneasy tension between the religious fundamentalists and the rest of us---but a middle ground can be achieved. The pendulum needs to be shifted away from the extreme libertine agenda.

Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas warned against severe restrictions on the hoi polloi. Governments should not be trying to turn their citizens into saints. This is not their role. Only the minimum sufficient in keeping the wheels of society moving is required.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 13, 2004 12:21 PM

It's a delicate situation for gop leaders. Obviously, they can't push too far to the right, or they'll lose some of the coalition.

But you can't just ignore your base either. If you continually ignore the base, they won't come out and vote for you.

The Specter situation is a good case study. It's very important to the right to have non-social activist judges. But with the patriot act and tort reform on the agenda, it's also important to have someone fight for the team. Is Specter that person? History has shown him to be more liberal in the two years after his election. Yet they don't want to deny him the chairmanship and anger him either.

Posted by: austin mls at November 13, 2004 12:43 PM

MT,

It is a virtual certainty the GOP will go too far and there will be a major realignment at some point. The trick is to put it off as long as possible.

Posted by: spc67 at November 13, 2004 01:27 PM

Look for Bush to use abortion to fix the dems in place while he pushes through ss and tort reforms. The dems can easily over-extend themselves politically on predictable issues. Watch for GW to have a productive second term, don't underestimate him and what his priorities will be.

Posted by: Raymond at November 13, 2004 01:34 PM

“It is a virtual certainty the GOP will go too far and there will be a major realignment at some point. The trick is to put it off as long as possible.”

And you are willing to hold your breath for how long? How much would you bet in Las Vegas on this time period? Would you bet $10, $100, your life savings? More importantly, if you are a Democratic U.S. Senator or Congress person---is it worth it to be patient for probably at least another ten years? The Democrats have to wish for a disaster to hit the country---for that is the only hope they have. A modestly successful Republican administration will be too much to overcome.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 13, 2004 01:39 PM

I'm a DLC-type Democrat (now ex-Dem) who's tried to support local pro-business Republican candidates where possible because I live in a deep-blue one-party state with all the attendant corruption and mismanagement one can imagine. But the local Republicans, who had been making a slow comeback by broadening their tent, have already alienated me by a half-dozen too many aggressively pro-God campaign recordings in the lead-up to the presidential election.

It was the religious right that helped turn my state into such a one-party stronghold in the first place. They should have taken a different tack from the national Republican campaign and highlighted economics and security issues, not religion.

Posted by: Joel at November 13, 2004 02:00 PM

Joel,

Which state do you live in?

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 13, 2004 02:50 PM

I would like to know too Joel. The Relgious Right is an interesting case study on coalitions, because they have been extremely divisive, yet able to turn out a lot of people to the GOP. Yet they have received little in turn. Its ironic, but the way to limit their influence in the GOP is simple: join it, and exercise your power inside the party to get more moderate people into the party positions, and to get more moderates to succeed in the primaries. Yet many people don't want to join becuase of the religious right (like Michael).

Posted by: FH at November 13, 2004 03:31 PM

The right is not going to stop pushing their theocratic agenda. And you know what? They're going to win. Because the forces of social liberalism will be betrayed by folks who share their views, but are to the right on foreign policy, like you claim to be, Michael. Your vote for Bush was the first step. You empowered the theocrats - it doesn't matter if you disagreed with them in your heart, because you pushed that button and got in line. Frankly, that one gesture makes me doubt most of what you say about social issues. More and more often, I think you're a righty at heart, playing "liberal" to lure in a higher grade of commentator than shows up at, say, Misha's piss-puddle.

Assuming that I'm wrong, and that you do actually have liberal social views (though frankly, none of your rhetoric that I've ever read has carried any more weight than the cliched "some of my best friends are..."), how bad will it have to get, before you, Michael, will admit you were hoodwinked? When will you realize that you, and every other liberal who got scared into voting Bush, was and is a useful idiot?

When the battle really starts - when there are books being yanked from library shelves, when pharmacists nationwide are refusing to prescribe birth control or are being fired when they do prescribe it, when there are people being fired from their teaching jobs for being gay or even just unmarried (remember, a guy who wants exactly that to happen got elected to Congress this time out) - will you stand up, Michael? I doubt it. I think you'll tell yourself that it's worth giving up a few things, because the Republicans are gonna save us from the terrorists. And I think a lot of other people will stay quiet, too, because they don't want to be attacked by the religious right. And that's all it takes - for people to do nothing.

This is sleight of hand. We were asked to believe that only Bush can save us from terrorists, and we are being asked to focus all our attention on Iraq (well, that and Laci Peterson, until this week) so that no one bothers to observe environmental destruction, economic insanity, and the rise of James Dobson as the nation's Grand Inquisitor.

I said it a few times on this site before the election: Bush will make this country not worth saving. I wonder how bad it will get before you, Michael, will admit that it's happened. I wonder if you'll even get the chance.

Americans like their freedoms, but they're not all that willing to fight for them. This is your criticism of the Democratic party, right? That they're not willing to defend America from outside attack? Here's a hint - they're not gonna be any more willing to defend against destruction from within. You have elected people who hate vast swaths of this country's culture, and will use their power to try and destroy it.

Posted by: pdf at November 13, 2004 05:13 PM

pdf: I think you're a righty at heart, playing "liberal" to lure in a higher grade of commentator than shows up at, say, Misha's piss-puddle.

Fuck you for calling me a liar. One more crack like that and you're banned forever. I should ban you right now. You do not deserve to post here. Go ahead and flame me so we can get this over with.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 13, 2004 05:41 PM

I was describing Hawai‘i, but the comments could apply equally well to CA or MA. Romney's religious allies lost seats in MA as well, I understand.

You've got it backwards, pdf: We have refused to elect people who hate vast swaths of this country's culture, and would use their power to try and suppress it.

Posted by: Joel at November 13, 2004 06:49 PM

You have elected people who hate vast swaths of this country's culture, and will use their power to try and destroy it.

Posted by pdf at November 13, 2004 05:13 PM
**************************************************
Yes I have noticed all the spleen directed at large swaths of this country's culture by Democratic politicians. ;-)

Posted by: Daniel Kauffman at November 13, 2004 08:52 PM

Here's the deal:

I don't want Bush to get tough on Specter. I want him to instead, get tough on some of the disloyal CIA spooks, whose brazen insubordination have violated all standards of honorable public service.

read david brooks column for more info

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?oref=login&hp

Bush and the GOP should let Specter have the Chair position, but he should use his election mandate to fix the CIA and clean out the garbage.

Posted by: john marzan at November 13, 2004 10:04 PM

A highly motivated minority beats an apathetic majority.

If 30% of the country agrees with religious right on social issues, 21% is ambivalent or disagrees but votes them into power anyway for other reasons, and 49% votes against them, they'll win. They'll keep winning until enough of the 21% decide that the other issues where they agree with the GOP no longer can trump the social conservatism.

If they can select three or four Supreme Court justices in the interim, they'll keep winning even longer than that.

I assume you'll draw the line somewhere. If we get to the point where the marriage amendment might actually pass? If they overturn not only Roe but Griswold and Lawrence? If some states start limiting access to birth control and criminalizing sodomy laws, but those laws go unenforced? If they're actually jailing people? I'm not saying any of these things are inevitable--it all depends on how much the non-religious right members of the GOP put up with before they start casting their votes based on social issues.

I find it hard to believe that you would support a candidate or a party that talked about Jews the way the Republicans talk about gays, or tried to amend the Constitution to make sure Jewish people do not have too many rights--even if there were better-than-even odds the amendment would fail. I would guess this is NOT because you are homophobic, or that you believe that sexual orientation is more of a choice than religion, or less fundamental to one's identity. I would guess it is because it's socially acceptable to be anti-gay and not socially acceptable to be anti-Jewish; or because of the legal status quo.

Posted by: Katherine at November 13, 2004 11:22 PM

Katherine,

If the Republicans blow it (and it won't shock me if they do) that doesn't mean the Democrats will win my heart back by default. The party is broken. Please help fix it. I can't - I've been excommunicated. You and my wife seem to be the only ones who want me back.

I don't think I will ever go back. That doesn't mean I won't vote for Democratic candidates. I hope to vote for a Democratic president in 2008. But if I do that it will be as an Independent who will also take a look at the Republican candidate. I'm out of the box now, and I don't think I can be stuffed back into it, just as I can never return to the church - and for some of the same reasons.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 14, 2004 01:52 AM

The evangelical "ultra puritanical theocracy" is a silly strawman beneath anybody but the ACLU and the Leftist wackos at Indymedia. All we want is for our kids to grow up in the same world we did, and that our parents did. We don't accept your Blade Runner dystopian worldview. If you consider that "ultra puritanical", then you're a culture destroyer and an idiot.

Posted by: David at November 14, 2004 09:22 AM

MT -

I didn't mean to be insulting earlier, but here's how I see it: your position can be as nuanced as all get out, but in practice, in the voting booth, it winds up as thumbs-up/thumbs-down. You voted for Bush, so however important your social beliefs are, you put them aside just long enough to make all the difference. In my worst moments, that makes me think that the values you claim to hold may not be your real values, because you surrendered them. You would not surrender to Mullah Omar, so why surrender to Mullah Dobson? Understand?

What I was attempting to say is exactly what Katherine said in her post above - all it takes for the theocrats to win is for people who disagree with them, but think other priorities have to take momentary precedence, to do nothing. Because the theocrats don't think other priorities take precedence - those are the puppet show they're distracting us with.

Their half-assed approach to Homeland Security reveals all - and I should know, because I live near the Newark/Elizabeth, NJ seaports, and I know people who work down there. We are not safe, and there's little or no effort being made to make us safe. I bet the robbery rate in Penn Station has gone down since they injected a couple of hundred cops and soldiers into the building, but that's about it.

The real agenda comes in documents like the letter James Dobson sent Bush immediately after the election. Did you read it? There was no comment about it here. (And that's kinda what worries me about you, Michael. You post all the time about how the Democrats should become more militaristic, but you never seem to say anything - other than vague murmurings about not overreaching - about how the Republicans should get down off their witchfinding horses and express support for the tolerance and freedom Bush claims the terrorists hate us for.)

My point of view may occasionally be expressed crudely (people who read my music criticism have said so many times), but it's genuinely felt. I'm not here just to fuck with you. I don't post at any other "warblogger" pages. I come here because I think you're a smart guy, and it's always interesting to engage with someone smart, even when you disagree with them on just about everything they choose to talk about (if you were to engage cultural topics more often, we'd probably find a lot of common ground).

Posted by: pdf at November 14, 2004 12:49 PM

pdf: I didn't mean to be insulting earlier, but here's how I see it: your position can be as nuanced as all get out, but in practice, in the voting booth, it winds up as thumbs-up/thumbs-down. You voted for Bush, so however important your social beliefs are, you put them aside just long enough to make all the difference. In my worst moments, that makes me think that the values you claim to hold may not be your real values, because you surrendered them. You would not surrender to Mullah Omar, so why surrender to Mullah Dobson? Understand?

Now that's a point of view I can understand. (Much better than what you said before, thanks.)

But here's the deal. My mind is split. Sometimes I like the Democrats and sometimes I like the Republicans. So I voted for both parties at the same time - Democratic Congress, Republican White House. It's the logical way for me to resolve my dilemma.

When I voted for Bush as president I didn't vote for James Dobson any more than I voted for Michael Moore when I returned my Democratic Congressmen to Washington.

There are wing-nuts on both sides. They cannot be avoided, unfortunately. I can't let this paralyze me. Likewise, you shouldn't let left-wing nuts paralyze you if you prefer Kerry to Bush.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 14, 2004 01:24 PM

>>When I voted for Bush as president I didn't vote for James Dobson any more than I voted for Michael Moore when I returned my Democratic Congressmen to Washington.

I think this is a false dichotomy, though. Michael Moore is a media figure who is occasionally patted on the head by folks who think it'll get them a vote or two. (Much as I admired Fahrenheit 9/11 as a piece of propaganda, the Democrats who explicitly endorsed Moore - and John Kerry was not one of them, though Wesley Clark was - lost credit in my eyes.) James Dobson is a political activist whose views and concerns are taken seriously by the right. Whenever the right wants to bash the left, they drag out people like Moore, who don't have any actual political power, and present them as the equal of Rick Santorum or Tom Delay or Tom Coburn or James Dobson, who are batshit insane to a man, but who can actually get laws passed. There's a huge difference.

Posted by: pdf at November 14, 2004 04:46 PM

pdf,

I don't see much difference between Moore and Dobson. Both are despicable unelected (and unelectable) activists who damage the reputation of the parties they get out the vote for. Because politics is what it is, each is also doomed to perpetual unhappiness with the way their party of choice actually governs.

If Kerry won the election I would not expect the United States to adopt Moore's foreign policy. (I don't think he even has a foreign policy. He's just an asshole.) And since Bush won the election I don't expect the United States to adopt Dobson's social policy. It doesn't work like that in this country. There are far too many Democrats and Republicans who may be afraid to smack down their loons in public, but that doesn't mean they agree with them or will vote to appease them. A minority will, but a majority won't. Banning gay marriage is the only exception I see, and that's because a large swath of the Democratic Party (including John Kerry, but not including me) also opposes gay marriage. Opposing gay marriage is, I'm real sorry to say, mainstream and even left-of-center. It's worth pointing out, though, that the majority of people who voted for Bush are in favot of gay civil unions.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 14, 2004 06:38 PM

>>There are far too many Democrats and Republicans who may be afraid to smack down their loons in public, but that doesn't mean they agree with them or will vote to appease them.

This is where you and I diverge, I think. I'm very afraid that Bush will not only appease these people, but that he, in fact, agrees with them. His own cousin, John Ellis, has been quoted as saying that Bush doesn't have to pander to the religious right, because Bush is the religious right. That's the big difference between Bush and Reagan (never mind between Bush and his father). Reagan pandered to social conservatives. Bush is one.

>>It's worth pointing out, though, that the majority of people who voted for Bush are in favor of gay civil unions.

And five days before the election, Bush said he was in favor of them, thereby sending a bunch of Republicans into a panic, figuring the only reason he'd ever say that was that he knew something they didn't know - namely, that he might be losing. Unfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out many times to general silence, the legislation that's been proposed doesn't leave any windows for the establishment of civil unions. It forbids marriage, and all the legal benefits thereof, from being awarded to non-heterosexual couples. If they yanked that clause, I'd be perfectly fine with the amendment.

Frankly, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Leave it up to the churches. I was married by a small-town mayor, and if that was declared to be a "civil union," it wouldn't change my feelings for my wife (11 years and counting) one iota.

Posted by: pdf at November 15, 2004 06:25 AM

pdf,

There is a difference between a social conservative and a theocratic fundamentalist, just as there is a difference between a social liberal and a leftist.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 15, 2004 11:13 AM

The design of our government is set up to protect us against much of James Dobson's agenda becoming law. Because of the supermajority needed to pass Constitutional amendments, the worst that social liberals have to fear, I think, is a return to state lawmaking on certain hot button topics like abortion and gay rights. The progress of technology, capitalism and our real national religion of consumerism will take care of the rest: people will drive to work listening to Howard Stern using the f word on XM Satellite Radio, and Paris Hilton look alikes will continue to walk the malls of (Red) America.

Frankly, if the only thing that bothered me about the Republican Party was its theocratic wing, I'd become a Republican.

I'm more concerned about its complete indifferance toward the failures of unbridled capitalism, its hostility toward the losers of society (and their children), and its endless faith in the ability to solve any foreign policy challenge with in-your-face triumphalism.

Posted by: Markus rose at November 15, 2004 11:49 AM

David wrote:

The evangelical "ultra puritanical theocracy" is a silly strawman beneath anybody but the ACLU and the Leftist wackos at Indymedia. All we want is for our kids to grow up in the same world we did, and that our parents did. We don't accept your Blade Runner dystopian worldview. If you consider that "ultra puritanical", then you're a culture destroyer and an idiot.

This is actually pretty close to the truth. All of the evidence I’ve seen (various polls on the public’s percept on various social issues as well as the results when they’re actually put up for a vote like the 11 or so marriage initiatives this past election) shows that the American public is generally pretty socially conservative when it comes to things like defining marriage as between a man and a woman, supporting capital punishment for murderers, supportive of religious expression in the public sphere (e.g. “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayer in school, etc.), support of traditional institutions such as the BSA, patriotism, opposing racial preferences and setasides, opposed to unrestricted abortion, etc. Considering that people generally become more socially conservative as they get older and that immigrants tend to also be more socially conservative, this will trend seems unlikely to change in the near future and if anything will probably grow.

In which case, the Right has far less to lose when it comes to social issues than Democrats. All of the reports for example about the positions of black voters (an important constituency in Democrats who need to get at least 80 percent in order to win any State-wide race in a number of key States) indicates that they tend to be far more socially conservative than the party activists. In the future it may not be “moderate” Republicans who break away from voting for their party over social issues but rather “moderate” Democrats who break away from the Democrat party because it is so far out of the main steam.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at November 19, 2004 09:55 AM

Electricity is actually made up of extremely tiny particles called electrons, that you cannot see with the naked eye unless you have been drinking. Dave Barry (1947

Posted by: credit report credit score at November 22, 2004 03:12 AM

Good work.

Posted by: Terry at December 3, 2004 09:10 PM

I HOPE THE AMBITIOUS REALIZE THAT THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED WITH SUCCESS AS OPPOSED TO FAILURE.
- George W Bush, JAN. 18, 2001 Payday Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Payday Loan at December 16, 2004 06:54 AM

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four
tellers?
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Loan at December 16, 2004 09:40 AM

The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

Posted by: Payday Loans at December 17, 2004 06:09 AM
cool blog - thanks for the service

online casino

Posted by: casino at June 28, 2005 02:42 AM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 7, 2005 12:48 AM

telewizory plazmowe lgjvc Telewizory plazmowe
sklep internetowy kamery cyfrowe sony panasonic minidv Kamery cyfrowe, .

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at August 15, 2005 10:53 AM

I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; everything negative has positive side. It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.

Posted by: penis at October 4, 2005 04:44 PM

viagra
cialis
levitra
meridia
xenical
propecia

Posted by: online casinos at October 7, 2005 12:29 AM

viagra
cialis
levitra
meridia
xenical
propecia

Posted by: online casinos at October 7, 2005 05:00 AM

kosmetyki naturalne
kosmetyki
mieszkania w Warszawie
agencja reklamowa

Posted by: ap at December 1, 2005 09:18 AM

freetimes
jidds
fabrykapoe
sfworks

Posted by: artse at December 23, 2005 02:46 AM

runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape2store.com">runescape gold wow power leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">Warcraft PowerLeveling buy

runescape gold buy runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-

runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-runescape-accounts-c-599_988.html">runescape accounts <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-

1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c-389.html">Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c

-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buylotrogold.org">buy lotro gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buy-lotro-gold.cn">buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-

975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.800millions.com">runescape money runescape power leveling <a

href="http://www.runescape2vip.cn">runescape money runescape gold <a

href="http://www.buydofuskamas.com">dofus kamas cheap runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape4money.net">cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-

1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London

Palladium Hellgate money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold

buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold

Hellgate London gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/dofus-c-891.html">dofus kamas buy

dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 <a

href=http://www.nncbroadway.com>音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码

电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 <a

href=http://www.innhot.com/7daysinn>7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 <a

href=http://www.filt.cn>自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪

风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 <a href="http://www.wow-power-

leveling.net">wow power leveling wow powerleveling <a

href=http://"www.wow-power-leveling.net">Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft

Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling <a href=http://"www.wow-

power-leveling.net">World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape

power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树


eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

Posted by: runescape money at November 30, 2007 07:46 PM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn