In contrast to the feckless, inane, dismissive stupidity from E. J. Dionne I referenced yesterday, Peter Beinart is exactly spot-on. And this is why the Tea Party has a chance to not be co-opted by the Republicans. (Full disclosure: I am of the opinion that Peter Beinart, while often wrong, says something interesting or useful 86.9% of the time.) Anyway, the issue of foreign intervention is not going anywhere, and any serious discussion of national financial solvency must by necessity include the possibility of major cuts in defense spending. However, before the Republicans tie me up and burn me at the stake Latimer-style, (ahem) I would point out that entitlements (Medicare, Social Security) have an even bigger share, depending on how you look at it. If the Democrats were any better than the spineless invertebrates on the ocean floor, (that is, consistent with the application of their ideological outlook and flow of policies) they'd man up and impose a means-test for both, but especially for Social Security. If they really believe in it as a means of social protection, they'd tell us all that these programs are essential parts of the plan to prevent income inequality from producing social inequality. [You sound like Mickey Kaus.--ed.] We can only hope. I digress. Don't be afraid to use the coercive power of government in this way if you really feel it's "the right thing to do." Which usually outs most people as inconsistent hypocrites, since the elected officials are afraid of the right-wing mob, who, while decrying "tax and spend" policies, does not favor the cutting of [bribes] programs they actually use. On the other hand, most progressive types might seem, despite protestations, to care more about the appearance of solving a problem than actually solving it. (Which is one of the points of Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis For Social Policy".) That title itself could explain American conservatism's visceral hostility to its opposite. [Semi-Germane Side-Rant: I think Mickey made Slate suck less, and now that he's at Newsweek, Newsweek sucks less, too. Though for my part, I never understood some of the right-leaning celebration at the impending demise of Newsweek; though its left tilt was observable and sometimes irritating, every time I have read a Newsweek, it has ranged from, "That was pleasantly diverting as I wait at the dentist's office" to, "That was an amazing piece that has enriched my intellectual life." I have never been angered by what I viewed as an unfair presentation of an issue. But that's just me.]
Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...
Comments