Conservative Donnybrook

The sister of a friend – the sister an editor at National Review and the friend a burgeoning attorney – clued me in to Irving Kristol’s wonderful collection of essays, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. 

In a foreboding essay entitled “American Intellectuals and Foreign Policy,” written in 1967, the “godfather of neoconservatism” explains “the extraordinary inconsistencies of intellectuals on matters of foreign policy”:

So it is that many intellectuals are appalled at our military intervention in Southeast Asia, on  the grounds that, no matter what happens there, the national security of the United States will not be threatened.  But these same intellectuals would raise no objection if the United States sent an expeditionary force all the way to South Africa to overthrow apartheid, even though South Africa offers no threat to American security.

Now for the taxidermy: replace “Southeast Asia” with “Iraq,” “South Africa” with “Darfur” and “overthrow apartheid” with “end genocide.”  You get:

So it is that many intellectuals are appalled at our military intervention in Iraq, on the grounds that, no matter what happens there, the national security of the United States will not be threatened.  But these same intellectuals would raise no objection if the United States sent an expeditionary force all the way to Darfur to end genocide, even though Darfur offers no threat to American security.

Samantha Power, Obama’s former leading lady on foreign policy issues, comes to mind.

Lowry’s latest proves remarkably insightful despite its brevity.

As I mentioned previously, no matter what Benedict said in his addresss to the U.N. liberals were going to seize on the pontiff’s words and reappropriate them as a rebuke of Bush’s foreign policy.  Benedict gave them little fodder, if any.  In fact,

…Benedict blessed an interventionism farther reaching than anything Bush has ever defended. If nation states don’t protect their citizens from ‘grave and sustained violations of human rights,’ he said, ‘the international community must intervene.’ This view might seriously endanger national sovereignty – if the United Nations weren’t so comically ineffectual.

As expected, Benedict devoted much of his address to a dense philosophical explication of human rights.  While liberals had hoped Benedict would chide the U.S. specifically, His Holiness took a more universal approach, referencing “the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. ”  Lowry correctly notes that, with this universal theme of human dignity and rights,

Benedict sounded similar to Bush. There’s a reason that yesterday Bush declared with gusto at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington: ‘His Holiness believes that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man, woman and child on Earth.’

Emphasizing the most blaspemously neglected storyline of Benedict’s visit, Lowry recognizes ‘the consonance of vision’ of Benedict and Bush:

When they stood together on the White House lawn in a majestic welcoming ceremony on Wednesday, it symbolized the growing rapprochement of American evangelical Protestantism and the Catholic Church.

It was West Texas meets Rome; plain-spoken man of faith meets intellectual of great depth; representative of America’s awesome secular power meets representative of the spiritual power of Christianity.  And more united than divided them.

After reading Karl’s rhythmically challenged comments on “Kiddie Cocktails” I nominate him for number one on this list!  Move over Rob Van Winkle!

A better model of Christ, a better message of “Hope”:

Thanks to The Curt Jester. And Laughing Squid.

WAC