The American Conservative

Thou didst brilliantly enlighten the world by thy firm and God-inspired teaching/ and didst cross the universe like lightning, blessed Father Cyril./ Thou didst sow the shining Word of God in the west and north and south,/ and didst enlighten the world by thy miracles.

It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn’t work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism. ~W.F. Buckley, NRO

Via Antiwar Blog.

I suppose this is Buckley’s way of offering Mr. Bush a face-saving way out: “It’s not our wild-eyed optimistic ideas that are really out of whack–it’s those damn Arabs! Anybody else would have jumped at the chance of Freedom and maybe even made it work. Nice try, Mr. President. Let’s try somewhere else!” Of course, this is half true.

This “idealism” failed in Iraq because of both the idealism and the Iraqis together and because of their basic incompatibility. This is not necessarily to say something against the Iraqis–the managerial and welfarist state model with elections and rampant individualism attached that we frequently call democracy is not something I would inflict on my worst enemy, so it is not necessarily a knock on the Iraqis that they are not making a go of it.

Far from being the world-conquering, inevitable force of Fukuyamian historical evolution that some imagine it to be, this model is deeply flawed, in many respects contrary to human nature and incredibly fragile and in need of a very particular environment. We may as well plant an orchid in the desert and then condemn the sand for failing to help it grow–instead, why not blame the buffoon who put an orchid in the desert?

But that begs the question whether there are suitable environments for this orchid in many parts of the world. After being disproved enough times, it may be that the “postulates,” as Buckley calls them, really are just as false as their critics have said all along. At what point do we stop putting our faith in these “postulates,” much less continue to make them the centerpiece of our foreign policy? My answer would be to stop now and save ourselves the suspense of watching another transplanted orchid die so pitifully.

Already critics have jumped out of their Manhattan apartments to accuse Rod Dreher of selling a kind of lifestyle conservatism; that crunchy conservatism is another “choice” in the panoply of lifestyles that are afforded to us by the free market. Dreher’s book, often at great pains, tries to demonstrate that the sensibility that informs crunchy conservatism is a natural expression of the traditional values that political conservatives claim to honor. ~Michael Brendan Dougherty, AFF’s Brainwash

Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Great Britain to the United Arab Emirates?

Our cosmopolitan Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the new Davos world of the Global Economy, where nationality does not matter, and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us. ~Pat Buchanan

Bush’s logic in defending the right of a Middle Eastern company to enjoy the same access to America’s strategic infrastructure as a British company is the same logic that has granted millions of Muslims equal access to this country’s green cards and passports, thus creating the main terrorist threat that America faces today. It is the logic of globalization and anti-discriminationism. It is not merely flawed, it is evil, and it presents a mortal danger to our civilization. ~Srdja Trifkovic

Dr. Trifkovic also lays out the numerous glaring security and conflict-of-interest problems that also make the deal an outrage and a scandal. For starters, the basic due diligence at Homeland Security was evidently superficial and perfunctory, and not the kind of review one might imagine would or ought to go on when a major contract like this is being awarded. It doesn’t take a great mind to see that granting a foreign company administrative control over key ports invariably makes information on the security for those ports availale to that company’s home government, and if that government is less than 100% reliable as an ally it provides an opening to that government to use or sell this information to those who could use it to the detriment of Americans. Of all the companies they could have chosen, one from the UAE is uniquely dangerous. But the point is well taken that Mr. Bush’s complete inability to see why the UAE and Britain are not at all different is the most bizarre and dangerous aspect of the entire episode.

I’m not an economist, but I disagree that efficiency is the foundation of the free market. Competition seems a more likely candidate. If government regulations prevent an organic meat producer from getting his product for a reasonable price to those who would want it, then in what sense is the market “efficient”? It hasn’t fulfilled its function because one producer has moved to stifle competition. ~Mitch Muncy, Crunchy Cons

One basic point: efficiency is a technical description of obtaining maximum value at minimum cost as measured by money. In this view, efficiency is the desired goal for any transaction, and things that impose extra costs are held to have introduced inefficiencies into the system. These might be tangible things, such as a government regulation, or seemingly intangible stigmas and social norms that stress loyalty to community or local firms.

What is deemed valuable depends on what commands the greatest monetary value, as money is the only thing with which to measure “preferences”–he who is willing to pay the most decides what is most valuable. If no one is willing to pay for those seemingly intangible goods by paying the higher prices on commodities that maintaining these goods might entail, for example, the “preference” for them is less valuable than the “preference” for a major chain store. Here is part of Paul Heyne’s very concise and useful definition:

Economic efficiency makes use of monetary evaluations. It refers to the relationship between the monetary value of ends and the monetary value of means. The valuations that count are, consequently, the valuations of those who are willing and able to support their preferences by offering money.

From this perspective a parcel of land is used with maximum economic efficiency when it comes under the control of the party who is willing (which implies able) to pay the largest amount of money to obtain that control. The proof that a particular resource is being used efficiently is that no one is willing to pay more in order to divert it to some other use.

I think we can see that efficiency, as described here, is the guiding principle of modern economic life, and it is what informs the indifference or hostility of homo oeconomicus to those primary moral, political and spiritual goods that stand in the way of economic efficiency. In a slightly roundabout way, I think the Kelo decision relies on this conception of efficiency: to make the greatest use out of a property, its current owner will not be allowed to hold the property when a developer is willing to pay more for its purchase than the owner is willing to pay for its continued possession. That the owner should not need to pay anything to be secure in his property rights is obvious to sensible people, but sensible people have little to do with the current form of economic development or modern jurisprudence. The local government can now legally compel him to give up his property, so that it might be turned to a more efficient use. In a world in which efficiency is one of the chief virtues, even personal property rights can become an obstacle to be knocked down.
Read More…

I’m no close student of Wendell Berry’s. He may be brilliant and he may not be. I only know him by reputation and scattered bits and pieces. That you put so much stock in him inclines me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, perhaps there is a larger context that makes the passage below into something more sensible than it appears to me now. That is as charitable as I will be. Now, look at this passage:

The “conservatives” more or less attack homosexuality, abortion and pornography, and the “liberals” more or less defend them. Neither party will oppose sexual promiscuity. The “liberals” will not oppose promiscuity because they do not wish to appear intolerant of “individual liberty.” The “conservatives” will not oppose promiscuity because sexual discipline would reduce the profits of corporations, which in their advertisements and entertainments encourage sexual self-indulgence as a way of selling merchandise. ~Jonah Goldberg quoting Rod Dreher’s citation of Wendell Berry, Crunchy Cons

This is one of Goldberg’s favourite tactics against the crunchy con idea. He cites something that Rod Dreher has said or quoted, solemnly avowed that nobody he knows has ever said these things and therefore declares that Dreher’s point is either irrelevant or, in this case, sophomoric. However deficient his arguing style is, though, I think Rod Dreher gave him an easier target than Goldberg deserved.

Update: Rod Dreher clarified the Berry quote here, and Caleb Stegall called Goldberg on his recourse to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy here.
Read More…

As Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council observed last week, “We are in the midst of a jihadist offensive. The bombing of [Iraq's] Askariya Shiite Shrine is another indication of the world-wide jihadist offensive against the West. ~William Kristol, The Weekly Standard

I’m not the greatest geography buff. In fifth grade, I didn’t advance in the National Geography Bee beyond taking first at my elementary school, so my qualifications may be limited here. But how dense do you have to be to cite the sectarian bombing of a shrine in Iraq as proof of an offensive, jihadist or otherwise, against the West? How dense do you have to be to quote someone saying that as if it were an obvious endorsement of your argument?

Shi’ite mosques and Christian churches are shot up in Pakistan with alarming frequency, and no one imagines that these represent parts of an anti-Western offensive. Kristol’s geographical genius reminds me of Stephen Fry’s depiction of Wellington: “We plan to take Boney completely by surprise via the North Pole.” To listen to Kristol the hysterical tell it, jihad is on the march everywhere. There are serious problems in Europe, but most of Kristol’s obsessions involve undermining American security and starting a war with Iran–both of which aid the jihadists and makes a further mockery of his dwindling movement.

What are Kristol’s proposals for the administration? Only one makes any sense at all: solidarity with Denmark. Otherwise, Kristol openly calls for the approval of the ludicrous Dubai-American ports deal and subverting the government of Iran (plus getting ever deeper into the Iraqi mess)–how this will prevent more destruction of the kind that took place in Samara is anybody’s guess. I suppose inflaming Shi’ites to bomb Sunni mosques will be taken as proof that Kristol’s plan is “working” and the West is back in fighting form?

Quick style note: It really bothers and confuses me how so many reporters use Catholic when they mean Roman Catholic. Catholic means universal and Roman Catholic refers to that church based out of, well, Rome. There is a difference. Many people who are not Roman Catholic consider themselves catholic — and even Catholic sometimes. ~Mollie, GetReligion

The journalists who label Roman Catholics simply as Catholics are not making a decision based on style (and are certainly not making one based on ecclesiology)–they are trying to convey the information with as few words as possible. And it isn’t a question of style–insisting on calling a Catholic a Roman Catholic is a bit pejorative, as it is designed to qualify Catholicism in terms of its relation to Rome, which is ultimately incidental to its own conception of the Catholic Church’s catholicity. To be fair, no one else readily self-identifies using the label Catholic except for “Roman Catholics,” so how bothersome and confusing could it really be? Old Catholics might have a more meaningful complaint against this sort of thing, and perhaps followers of Lefebvre also, but most other Christians would be hard pressed to be either bothered or confused by this usage.
Read More…

I’m no libertarian but I think no major government decision should ever be made unless there’s a libertarian in the room explaining to people why he thinks it’s a bad idea. The libertarian won’t always be right, but he’ll be right often enough that he should always be listened to. ~Jonah “Lie For a Just Cause” Goldberg, Crunchy Cons

I wonder what Goldberg must think of the Bush administration. There has never been any danger of any libertarians being in any rooms where the major decisions of this administration were being made. So Goldberg is highly critical of the wanton excesses of the Bush administration and its failure to listen to libertarian warnings about its policies, right? Oh, that’s right, all of this talk about libertarians is just a pose to make the “crunchies” seem like scary “statists” out to inflict organic chicken and homeopathy on the masses by fiat. Is this the best the anti-crunchy forces can muster?