December 17, 2004

The Martial Art of Book-Burning

A few days ago I wondered aloud on this page if any prominent conservatives would take on the “right-wing nanny-state jerks in their own party.”

I realize that libertarian Republicans do this on a regular basis. But libertarians are not conservatives. They are “classical liberals.” Many of them (like Glenn Reynolds) are basically centrists. Others (like Matt Welch) tend to lean to the left. What I want to see are actual capital-c Conservatives publicly challenge the right-wing authoritarians in their ranks.

If conservatives want to claim they stand for freedom, they need to actually stand for freedom. Arguing only with leftist opponents of freedom isn’t good enough. It comes across as cheap partisan opportunism that’s more anti-leftist than anything else.

Blogger John Coleman, self-described member of the religious right, seems to agree.
[I]n perhaps the most discomforting moves I have encountered in recent years, [a Republican] is burying books to "protect" our values. This of course, has been tried before, but to see it happen in the country that has served as a cove of comfort for writers from Rushdie to Solzhenitsyn is saddening. Even more frightening is the fact that so few of us have dared to respond. [My emphasis.]

I am not a prominent conservative; but I am a conservative. Moreover, I am a member of the religious right and a southerner by birth (born and raised in the heart of Georgia), and while my opinion matters little, I am ashamed that policies like this are allowed to persist in the party to which I often grant my support.


What happens when the party of the right leans away from the defense of liberty and toward the despicable martial art of book burning?
The question answers itself. Good for you, John, for asking it. Now if only you can convince Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to do the same.

UPDATE: Unsurpisingly, Andrew Sullivan picked this up. Anyone else want to take this on without waving their hands and saying "nothing to see here"?

SECOND UPDATE: Roy Edroso accuses me of being a psuedo-liberal. Guess what, Roy? I plead guilty. I'm a psuedo-liberal! Just as I'm a psuedo-conservative.
I really don't understand why these guys don't just say "fuck it" and announce themselves Republican.
Haven't we been going over that for the past several days? I swear to you, Roy, there are more than two points of view in this country. Try really really hard and you might scrounge up enough of the popular (yet somehow elusive!) nuance required to grasp this.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at December 17, 2004 12:37 PM


Sounds like a good piece to do for TCS to me. Get cracking Michael. =)

On a more serious note, it is an important issue, and one that prominent conservatives need to address. Hopefully the blogosphere can get those conservatives to notice the issue and address it.

Posted by: FH at December 17, 2004 12:49 PM

I'd sign up with you, Michael. I'm a conservative, and much closer to what I think "center" is than most libertarians.

Book burners? Might as well ask how I feel about witch trials, too.

I don't worry what people write in books unless they carry the power of law. Give one man or party power to decide what everyone else reads (caveat: I don't want a Porn Experience Workbook in my kids' junior high social studies course. We already have MTV and USA or WB for that...) and we might as well build dipping chairs outside our courthouses.

Posted by: TmjUtah at December 17, 2004 12:55 PM


I thought you were a broken-glass viking-helmet conservative. Is that the new center? :)

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 17, 2004 01:21 PM

Those who do such things are not of the conservative ideology, nor of the liberal one. They are totalitarians who feel they know what is best for us all. There are some in every shade of the spectrum.

I am what used to be called a liberal--a Constitutionalist. Who knows what I'm really considered to be now!?

Posted by: Mike at December 17, 2004 01:56 PM

Glenn Reynolds is a centrist?

Posted by: praktike at December 17, 2004 02:23 PM

Glenn Reynolds is a centrist?

I, too, must say WTF? to that one. Reynolds is a conservative, regardless of what he calls himself. Or more precisely, as I don't actually know the fellow, I'd have to say he does a hell of an impression of a conservative on his weblog.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2004 02:29 PM

Glenn Reynolds is a libertarian and a centrist.

You can be a centrist and vote for Bush just as you can be a centrist and vote for Kerry. Our binary two-party system fractures the center, but that doesn't mean the center doesn't exist. People in the center recognize others in the center even when they vote for different parties.

This sort of thing should give it away even for people who aren't in the center:

"My own feeling is that when I look at certain Democrats I like the Republicans, and when I look at certain Republicans I like the Democrats." - Glenn Reynolds

That's my feeling exactly right now.

There are more than two political philosophies in this country. Not everyone fits into a neat little box with a bold-faced label on it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 17, 2004 02:44 PM

If you can look at Reynolds and think he is conservative, I think that says more about how far to the left of center you are. (or "Progressive," "Socialist," "liberal," or "Big D Democrat") (Not sneer quotes, just trying to anticipate some responses.)

As a libertarian myself, I think he trends centrist or libertarian.


Posted by: J1 at December 17, 2004 03:04 PM


I'm there. I will gladly blog on this topic, as someone who would (if I had to) pigeonhole myself as "left-conservative" (practicing Christian too).

I think part of the problem you're seeing here is that too many of us spend nearly all our time fending off attacks from the lunatic left and people who'd like to lynch us for voting for Bush. It does tend to take a toll after awhile, and may even be responsible for foisting a kind of "no enemies on the right" mentality (God forbid).

BTW your blog is a class act. This is the first time I've posted, but I've been reading you forever. Keep it up.

Posted by: Pete (Alois) at December 17, 2004 03:10 PM

I read a lot of Reynolds, yet I cannot find anything on his blog that would indicate that he is in any way a classic liberal. And while he may be somewhat liberal on social issues, that does not make one politically liberal. Similarily, the vast bulk of his postings reflect a conservative viewpoint.

BTW, I too could say things like there are republicans that I like and admire, and that there were some great Republican presidents, or that I thought conservatives like Churchill had a lot of class. I could also say that there are liberals, leftists, and socialists that I think are complete horse's asses.

That does not make me a centrist. My beliefs about economics and government are what define my political stance, just as Reynold's does. And he simply doesn't believe, as seen from opinions he posts on his blog, in the economic and principles of government that would put him in the center.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2004 03:18 PM

Michael, thank you for the link. I think the problem is that people would rather get angry than think. They would rather be tribal than deliberative because tribalism is easier (and in some testosterone-filled way, more fun). That is what makes people divide their friends and coworkers into binary political groups and makes Alabama politicians think it is alright to bury Oscar Wilde. I know I do it(not bury Oscar Wilde, engage in tribalism)--I think to varying degrees we all do (you should see my house during an FSU football game!). But, particularly on a political level, it can go way too far.

There are some circumstances in which force is necessary, obviously. But on the myriad of other issues where people's lives are not on the line, if you think the truth is on your side, why not let Truth win out through its own, inherent, force?

Posted by: John at December 17, 2004 03:18 PM

I'm nobody to speak of, but, as a Republican and a conservative, and I'd like the anti-intellectual reactionaries to know that it makes me ashamed and sick to my stomach to be associated with them in either philosophy or party. They should understand that my boys have my library of 1,500 books of all kinds to read as they grow up, and that in this library are books that do not give a good model for the values appropriate to a good life, but rather depict depravity and evil. They should perhaps contemplate for a couple of years what kind of young men these boys would become if they grew up never having wrestled with this great literature. At the end of this contemplation, I would hope that they would conclude that these young men would likely be shallow, unfamiliar with the depths of their own human nature and therefore unable to handle the vast array of behavioral foibles they will encounter in themselves and in others. They will be often afraid of other cultures for no good reason, usually opposed to progress even when it is consistent with sound conservative values, and, in all probability, somewhat stupid.

I'm not going to let them do that to my boys or anyone else's kids.

They've mistaken innocence and simplicity for a firm grasp on the most important values. They’ve ended up with stupidity and shallowness, when what they wanted was conservatism. If they poison the GOP with their lunacy, the party will end up a laughing stock, just like the Dems have. If they can’t wise up, then I will do everything I can as an active member of my party to make them feel as unwelcome in it as the racists, the theocrats, and the homophobes.

Posted by: Jim at December 17, 2004 03:42 PM

"If conservatives want to claim they stand for freedom, they need to actually stand for freedom. Arguing only with leftist opponents of freedom isn’t good enough. It comes across as cheap partisan opportunism that’s more anti-leftist than anything else."

Rays of sunlight have split the clouds and a powerful rendition of "Alleluiah" just came from nowhere.

Hey Sean Hannity, THAT MEANS YOU!

Posted by: Mike at December 17, 2004 03:53 PM

A: That Alabama legislator sounds like a world-class prick. (Then again, the Gaurdian wasn't likely to make him sound reasonable, now was it?) B: The sky is not falling. Every since the election of Reagan ushered in the imposition of Christian Sharia on this nation I've been hearing the same bleating from the usual suspects, and I think the only way I map perfectly to the hypothetical Center is my ability to tune this all-too-white noise out.

We're Doomed. Again.

You could legitimately debate whether, for instance, Heather Has Two Mommies really belongs in second grade classrooms. But as long as we'd all rather rant about which pigeonhole everyone else belongs in than actually, you know, discuss things with open minds, the assholes with real agendas will keep sneaking things through bureaucratic back doors.

And whichever team you're on, you'll find yourself wondering how the hell you got in the mess you're currently in.

Posted by: Mark Poling at December 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Mark: hear hear. This is a tempest in a nutshell politican's braincase, and I for could not care less if the left OR the right condemn it. I'd be more in favour of hearing some condemnation of the growing number of torture cases, and seeing some of the officials that have allowed this or encouraged it brought to justice.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2004 03:59 PM

...but I'd still like to rant about the pigeonhole thing.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2004 03:59 PM

DPU: nutshell politican's braincase

I like "nutcase politician's brainshell" better, but that's just me.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 17, 2004 04:00 PM

Yes, that would be my bad. Damn, I think up a pithy little phrase, and then I screw it up. Oh, the embarrassment.

Oh, wait. No, that's how we say it in Canada. Nutshell. Yeah, that's the ticket.

(phew, I think I pulled that off)

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2004 04:04 PM

I don't like either Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, but when have they ever advocated anything close to book burning? Maybe you mean they rail against liberal sex education curricula, but that's a pretty common sentiment. Like opposing flag burning, supporting book burning seems to have dwindled to a tiny part of even the religious right.

Posted by: Greg at December 17, 2004 05:42 PM

Michael, you support environmental protections, gay marriage, and sundry other perfectly sensible things, but voted for Bush, from whom you can expect no support on those issues, because you couldn't trust the moderate Democrat John Kerry to fight terrorism. (Or maybe I misread this.) If that is "nuance," I guess maybe I am having some trouble with it.

At least if you joined the GOP you might help resuscitate the Rockefeller-Javits wing of the Party, which would improve it immensely.

Posted by: roy edroso at December 17, 2004 07:06 PM

I think Michael Totten would have been at home in the Nixon era Republican Party. Nixon was quite liberal at home: Clean Air Act, EPA, increased spending on social welfare programmes, 26th amendment, occupational health and safety, "Bring Us Together". But at the same time lots of bombing abroad. Is that not Michael Totten in a nutshell?

Posted by: Benjamin at December 17, 2004 08:08 PM

Benj: But at the same time lots of bombing abroad.

But it was Nixon who went to China. You younguns probably don't remember, but at the time, the PRC was regarded with the same loathing and fear as Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are today. Or as North Korea is regarded, except much bigger.

Nixon may have been bad in a lot of ways, but he made a real breakthough in some foreign policy stuff. Nixon also ended the Vietnam War that had been escalted by a democratic president.

I know Nixon, and Michael J. Totten is no Dick Nixon.

No offense, Michael.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2004 08:18 PM


Yeah, the China thing. A clever move. I do actually know about that, old chum.

But as I said, lots of bombing abroad, plus liberalism at home. Put it this way, then.

If a Nixon was on the Republican ticket now there would have been less public agonising from Michael about who to vote for.

Oh no. Michael would have fitted quite easily into the Nixon era Republican Party. Well pre-Watergate obviously.

Posted by: Benjamin at December 17, 2004 09:02 PM

DPU, you say "Ended the Vietnam War" like that was a good thing.

In all seriousness, if we could have stayed the course and helped South Vietnam be another Taiwan, or South Korea, or Thailand (you get the idea) and kept Cambodia from turning into the charnel house it became, wouldn't that have been an overall plus for humanity as a whole?

I'm willing to be convinced that Vietnam was a fight we couldn't win. But I have yet to see a compelling argument that the fight in S.E. Asia wasn't worth fighting.

Posted by: Mark Poling at December 17, 2004 09:45 PM

If one will take the trouble to actually read books about the Vietnam War by Vietnamese writers that war starts looking very different from what I heard about it when I was young. Bui Diem's "In the Jaws of History" might be one good place to start, as it goes back to the early days of the Vietminh, when Uncle Ho and Giap were already conducting purges (assassinations) of anyone who was not a communist.

Posted by: miklos rosza at December 17, 2004 10:28 PM


Richard Nixon is responsible for Henry Kissinger.

Here's the last post I wrote that mentioned Kissinger. Please read it, follow the link to the Hitchens piece that I referenced, and try REALLY REALLY hard to understand who you're dealing with here.

I'm tired of your cartoonish response to everything I write.

Also, please read this post of mine called McGovern Versus Nixon. Knowing what I know now, I would vote for George McGovern against Richard Nixon.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 17, 2004 10:35 PM

Michael -

"I thought you were a broken-glass viking-helmet conservative."

Well...yes. And I do think that actually puts me closer to center than a doctrinaire definition Republican might fall.

Didn't we have a hugeous discussion about labels about a year or so ago? Or am I confusing that recollection with a recurrent cycle of subconcious blogstream self-regulating debate....?

Anyway, I just saw your last update and the quote from Mr. Edroso to the effect that you should declare as a Republican.

The implication of the remark is the distillation of the core defect of the Democrats, big "L" liberals, and wholly lost little "l" leftists in our political family portrait. Ergo: "If you disagree with us, you are obviously motivated by base partisan political agenda and devoid or more likely incapable of higher thought and so must be Republican."

That's called projection and it has NOTHING to do with the movies.

You have to realize your friend's dilemma. Just imagine the problem he faces - that a Blue state citizen holding long-standing credentials in environmental awareness, activist positions on gender, race, and economic issues AND a nationally recognised columnist,law professor, prochoice gunowner AND a lifelong conservative, mostly Red state high school grad who acknowledges being close to Burkean and is registered Republican, all acknowledge voting for Bush.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I don't think any of the three of us picked up a copy of the Republican National Platform and ticked off each bullet point as our Christmas wish come true, did we?

And if that is the case, and we voted based on our own analysis of which candidate was better prepared/qualified/willing/worthy and our candidate won, that means that the past election wasn't merely an example of one organization out-hacking the other.

It would mean that of the two visions put to the test, one was found wanting and rejected after honest public debate and decision.

If we aren't all Republicans according to their Faustian definition...then where is their legitimacy in waving a bloody fucking shirt vice actually attempting to participate in the solutions we have chosen to pursue?

I have found it increasingly diffucult to engage in political debate since the election. I've put up personal posts on everything from remodelling to near misses vice the war or politics since the ballots were counted. You've got loyal opposition and then you've got enemy. I think our minority is trying to figure out which way they want to go.

Strike that. They have no clue where they have arrived. And don't much care. And I see no reason why I should either, until the next elections roll around and we beat them again.

Posted by: TmjUtah at December 17, 2004 11:01 PM

It comes across as cheap partisan opportunism that’s more anti-leftist than anything else.

Er, that's not what it comes across as. That's what it is.

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 17, 2004 11:36 PM

MJT: "libertarians are not conservatives. They are “classical liberals.”"

Huh? According to the dictionary, a conservative wants to conserve the status quo, and a liberal wants to increase liberties - but that's not the way the terms are commonly used (namely liberal=lefty, conservative=righty). These days, there are a hell of a lot more right-leaning libertarians than left-leaning. So libertarians are in fact usually "conservative" according to the common-usage meaning of the term. Nice try redefining conservative to exclude libertarians, though.

We have in fact taken on the "nanny state jerks". You bet. Just look up what righty blogs have to say about Fallwell or Robertson, for example.

The most recent case for me would be when I pointed out how bigoted the folks at were - which got me banned at that site (ironically, thus my point about their intolerance).

Posted by: Obsidian at December 18, 2004 12:12 AM

Obsidian: Nice try redefining conservative to exclude libertarians, though.

I'm not the one doing the "redefining." The two groups define themselves differently. For one thing, libertarianism is a political philosophy. Conservatism, on the other hand, is a disposition.

A French conservative, a Russian conservative, and an American conservative might have little or nothing in common. But a French libertarian, a Russian libertarian, and an American libertarian should agree on most things.

I recommend Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies. It's a libertarian manifesto that somehow manages to never use the word "libertarian." She explains very articulately why this philosophy (which she refers to as "dynamism") is neither left nor right, but simultaneously both and different.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 18, 2004 12:29 AM

May I please commend to you the world's first blogger, Dr. Jerry Pournelle? That conservative Catholic author and scientist has often taken on the nanny-state jerks of the GOP and the current neo-Jacobins in power, despite his prominent role in LA's GOP circles and having risen so far during 41's administration to formally advise on space policy.

BTW, nice blog; pleased to be sharing the blogsphere with your musings.

Posted by: John Bartley K7AAY at December 18, 2004 01:01 AM

Michael Totten

Re: Nixon

Fair enough. But remember, it's with the power of hindsight...

If you were living in the time?

Posted by: Benjamin at December 18, 2004 04:00 AM

There is a legitmate argument for debating how books are interpreted, however, there is no legitmate argument for banning books.

For example, debating whether Shakesphere's works are "homosexually-inclined" is a matter of personal opinion which must not be interpreted as definitive while debating whether Shakesphere should be banned because of those interpretations is a waste of time and thought.

That said, when attempts are made to purchase every copy available for public access, such as books like "The Winter Soldier", this act in itself is a form of book banning.

I am a Conservative whose Liberal belief is that ALL books be made available for debate and interpretation, not simply limiting ourselves to those books which merely catapult us into extremism coming from both sides of the aisle.

Give me pluralism or give me death.

Posted by: syn at December 18, 2004 07:06 AM

I read a lot of Reynolds, yet I cannot find anything on his blog that would indicate that he is in any way a classic liberal.

Clasical liberal (not classic liberal) means liberal in the Englightenment-era sense; that is to say (in simplest terms) favoring both personal liberty - including the right to bear arms - and economic liberty. The two-party US system does not have any obvious home for classical liberals, who usually style themselves "libertarians" in US political terminology. The Republican Party is generally more protective of the right to bear arms and more for promoting economic liberty - at least in terms of lower tax rates - but generally less protective of individual liberties in issues such as the drug war, gay marriage etc. The Democratic Party is generally less protective of the right to bear arms and more anti-economic liberty (more regulation, higher taxes etc.), but more protective of individual liberties on gay marriage etc. Some libertarians (classical liberals) are more aligned with one Party or the other, for various reasons, while some actually join the Libertarian Party itself.

I give the above little primer because I think we're having some definitional misunderstanding here. And, yes, I realize I horribly oversimplified on the character of the two parties and I know that they switch roles fairly often. Anyone please feel freee to correct me anywhere I made a significant mistake.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at December 18, 2004 10:17 AM

When I say "significant mistake" I don't mean on an issue such as the assumption that the right for gay people to marry the people whom they romantically love is an issue of civil liberties. I recognize that there is debate on this point, but nothing will convince me otherwise, and I don't want to open that can of worms anyway. I only meant on a factual, definitional issue.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at December 18, 2004 10:23 AM

What this country needs is a Four Party System -- Republicans, Democrats, Wingnuts of the Right, and Wingnuts of the Left.

Posted by: Notary at December 18, 2004 12:46 PM

This "Notary" person is after my heart, fellas. I don't know if a 4-party system would be better than a 3-party system, though. Either way, it'd be better than what we have now.

In a 3-party system...Centrists, Leftists, and'd have one main party of sanity and common sense constantly being challenged with new ideas from the Left and Right. To stay competitive, the wingnuts would have to think outside the customary box of ideological dogma. I think a system like this would be optimal. Ideally, the Centrist Party could hold on to an actual majority and not just a plurality of popular support, making coalition-building irrelevant. Anytime that majority came under serious jeopardy from new popular ideas on the left or right (think Social Security Privatization or Same-Sex Marriage twenty years from now), the Centrist Party would have one hell of an incentive to incorporate those ideas as their own.

A 4-party system...Centrist-Liberals, Centrist-Conservatives, Leftists, and Rightists...would have its advantages, too. Two Centrist parties constantly slugging it out to out-innovate each other would be like heaven on earth. And who wouldn't love to see a Presidential contest between the likes of Bill Clinton and John McCain, or Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger, or even two New Yorkers in Hillary and Guiliani? In terms of forging an actual governing coalition though, I have no idea how that would play out. As a centrist-lib, the main perk I see in this is having a political party all to myself. But the practicalities of it might be too much to handle.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at December 18, 2004 11:10 PM

One of William F. Buckley's greatest achievements was to separate the conservative movement in America from the the squalid John Birch Society fringe.

One of the left's longest-lasting crusades has been to lump them back together.

Just as the liberals in this country are quick to back away from and declaim accountability for a Maxine Waters whenever she delivers some deranged screed, let alone for some California State Assemblyman who declares he must help Mexico "steal [California] back," there are no grounds for holding the conservative movement in this country responsible for every stump-squatting redneck.

Is this proposed legisaltion reprehensible? Of course it is. But the argument being used here is fallacious. For one thing, if the schools decide they really need these books, the government is NOT the only source of their funding; there are alumni donors, charities, foundations, all of which American academia is well-versed in taking advantage of. If this state senator wanted to be an effective homophobe, he would have introduced legisaltion banning this subject matter from state tests.

I've posted more on this subject at Ex Nihilo if anyone wants to read it,

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 19, 2004 10:03 AM

BTW, if you want a broad overview of this issue, as well as to be really terrified for your children's education, read Diane Ravitch's "The Language Police."

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 19, 2004 10:10 AM

One of the left's longest-lasting crusades has been to lump them back together.

Sir, the Senate Majority Leader is currently in the process of claiming that one can transmit AIDS through saliva. The fish rotted from the head.

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 20, 2004 06:05 PM

Kimmit. I know that AIDS is a problem for liberals. It's a terrible disease, it's expensive to maintain (those drugs aren't baking soda, you know), but the only way to stop its spread is forbidden to discuss.
AIDS is spread also by medical mischance--see the Ryan White case and the law named after him--and admitting that is problematic, since that makes AIDS sufferers a kind of Typhoid Mary.
How do you know for certain--to the extent you'd bet somebody else's life when you have responsibility for that life--that HIV isn't transmitted by saliva?
And why is taking that position some kind of corruption?
Never mind.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at December 20, 2004 08:34 PM

I'm tired of your cartoonish response to everything I write.

Don't take it personally, MT, he's trolling on at least 6 or 7 blogs. Same routine everywhere.

Merry Christmas, by the way.

Posted by: Sam_S (shenzhenRen) at December 20, 2004 09:27 PM

How do you know for certain--to the extent you'd bet somebody else's life when you have responsibility for that life--that HIV isn't transmitted by saliva?

Because that's what the doctors say. Except for Bill Frist. Hey, how do you know that HIV causes AIDS? The Prime Minister of South Africa says it doesn't . . .

And why is taking that position some kind of corruption?

Because it was used to justify lies told by abstinence-only sex education, by a medical doctor. It is impossible that he was speaking out of ignorance.

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 21, 2004 11:35 AM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member


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

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


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


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