Sunday, January 28, 2007
Mark Steyn With More Depressing, Correct Analysis
The only energy displayed by Nancy Pelosi was the spectacular leap to her feet within a nano-second of the president mentioning Darfur. Up went Madam Speaker and the entire Democratic caucus like enthusiastic loons on a gameshow. Darfur! We're all in favor of Darfur. People are being murdered! Hundreds of thousands! We oughtta do something! Like, er, jump up and down when it's mentioned in a speech. And, er, call for the international community to mobilize. Maybe one of those leathery old '60s rockers could organize an all-star concert or something. [...]
Darfur is an apt symbol of early 21st century liberalism: What matters is that you urge action rather than take any. On Iraq, meanwhile, the president declared: "Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory." And the Dems sat on their hands. [...]
The open defeatists on the Democrat side and the nuanced defeatists among "moderate" Republicans seem to think that big countries can choose to lose small wars. After all, say the "realists," Iraq isn't any more important to Americans than Vietnam was. But a realpolitik cynic knows the tactical price of everything and the strategic value of nothing. This is something on an entirely different scale from the 1930s: Seventy years ago, Britain and Europe could not rouse themselves to focus on a looming war; today, we can't rouse ourselves even to focus on a war that's happening right now. Read 100 percent of the Democratic presidential candidates' platforms and a sizeable chunk of the Republicans': We're full of pseudo-energy for phantom crises and ersatz enemies, like "global warming.'' [...]
The civilized world faces profound challenges that threaten the global order. But most advanced democracies now run two-party systems in which both parties sell themselves to the electorate on the basis of unaffordable entitlements whose costs can be kicked down the road, even though the road is a short cul-de-sac and the kicked cans are already piled sky-high. That's the real energy crisis.
(eg: in December 2003 he wrote about Iraq "another six weeks of insurgency sounds about right, after which it will peter out"; the following March he said: "I don't think it's possible for anyone who looks at Iraq honestly to see it as anything other than a success story."), I wonder what you're referring to when you say "more depressing, correct analysis". When was the first time Mr. Steyn was ever correct about anything.
I guess this is the new neocon excuse- yes we were wrong but so was everyone else. Similiar to the old Tom Delay/Jack Abramoff excuse- yes we're corrupt but so are all politicians.
Actually, I remember quite a few people who thought invading Iraq was a really dumb idea.