A recent essay by P. J. O’Rourke in Cato’s Letter caught my attention and sent me back to Jonah Goldberg’s insightful book, Liberal Fascism, which I reviewed earlier this year.  O’Rourke’s thesis, which parallels the essential message delivered by Goldberg, is that the problem in the conflict over issues in public discourse is politics; in other words, the idea that all of society’s ills can be cured politically.  This is historically a progressive notion, but has become almost equally shared by many who call themselves conservative, but who misconstrue conservatism properly defined, as Goldberg cautions: “What many conservatives fail to grasp is that conservatism is neither identity politics for Christians and/or white people nor right-wing Progressivism.  Rather, it is opposition to all forms of political religion.  It is a rejection of the idea that politics can be redemptive.  It is the conviction that a properly ordered republic has a government of limited ambition.”  And I would add that the extension of this sentiment is that government is not the answer to all of society’s crises.   

So when conservatives of all stripes hear the monotonous outcry to our elected officials, “get it together and get something done”, they had best be careful what is being wished.  How about Obama in the White House and a Democratic Congress with a filibuster-proof Senate and a couple more David Souters on the Supreme Court?  It would take a couple of generations, if ever, to repair that disaster.  So let’s hear it for gridlock, which may be the best outcome that some of us can hope for in this election year, and it would be much better than the most likely alternative. 

In his 1835 classic, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville was prescient in his characterization of the Russians and the Americans:  “The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russians are men.  The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms.  The conquests of the Americans are therefore gained by the ploughshare; those of the Russians by the sword.  The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centers all the authority of society in a single arm.  The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude.”  

It is pretty clear from this analysis that these two cultures were on a collision course, which, aided and abetted by the assertiveness of Marxist-Leninist ideology, was manifested in the 20th century.  And in spite of the fact that the West was ultimately triumphant, recent developments indicate that the conflict is re-emerging in a modified form.  

In the August issue, I commented on the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and suggested that he would have been an obvious choice to lead a Russian “truth commission” to examine and provide transparency and a sense of closure to the Soviet Communist regime of the 20th century.  What a difference this would have made in the world’s response to the recent Russian invasion of Georgia.  Let’s be very clear–a historical accounting of the lies and crimes of the past century would put in proper context the claims that Russia is now asserting.  The current aggression, conceived in the perception of U. S.  weakness because of its preoccupation with the Iraq conflict, which is acknowledged, and endemic European weakness and intimidation, which is obvious, is totally calculated to roll back American hegemony in the region, which is anathema to Russian leadership. 

Russian President Medvedev has made the Russian position very clear, in part as follows:  “…the world should be multipolar, a single pole world is unacceptable;……there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.”  And there are a number of very influential thinkers who have sympathy for the Russian position.  But let us also be clear about this pivotal point in world affairs–failing to stand up to this Russian intervention in a sovereign nation state would significantly damage every international gain since the end of the Cold War.  Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman said it well:  “In the long run, a Russia that tries to define its greatness in terms of spheres of influence, client states, and forced fealty to Moscow will fail.”  

Obviously, the U. S. is not going to war with Russia over Georgia, but there are a number of things that should be done in response to this violation of world order, including expulsion of Russia from the G-8, the accelerated advancement of Ukraine and Georgia membership in NATO, and the denial of Russian membership in the World Trade Organization.   Further, we should advance the organization of a league of democracies, which would counter the United Nations and exclude those nations, including Russia,  that have not sufficiently demonstrated their commitment to rule by the consent of the governed.

American credibility is at stake here, and the presidential election campaign should give due attention to the reality of these events and their import, as well as who is best qualified to organize, articulate, and deliver the American response.     

One wonders, if life and death policy judgments predicated on the point at which the sanctity of human life begins are beyond Barack Obama’s pay grade, what other life and death issues in this morally conflicted world does he consider beyond  his capacity?  Or, at a minimum, if he considers this judgment too close to call, why not give the benefit of the doubt to protection of the innocent victim in the transaction?

One also wonders how history might have been altered had Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Stephen Douglas in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scot case, given a similar answer to a question about the most pressing moral question of his time.

We should demand more of the types of penetrating questions posed by Pastor Rick Warren in the Saddleback Church forum, such as: what is Sen. Obama’s position on the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence?

Nobility of Spirit, by Rob Riemen

A thin, but powerfully written book in which man’s dual nature is explored and the spiritual side highlighted.  Riemen emphasizes the importance of the world of ideas in the classical sense and appeals to our intellectuals to take seriously their role as the guardians of universal values such as truth, beauty, piety, and goodness.  This line is telling in his theme: “One thing we certainly know is that if the discrepancy between politics and people on the one hand and the intellectual elite on the other–the ’guardians’–is so huge as to be irreconcilable, then the ideal of civilization, whatever it may be, is in deep trouble.”

Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, by Christopher Hitchens

A very interesting take on the life and work of a true maverick by my favorite leftist atheist, with whom I almost totally disagree (the war in Iraq being the exception), but who is one of the most gifted writers of my experience.  Paine, of course, has the distinction of being an ideological catalyst for two of the most transforming revolutions in world history, and Hitchens does a good job of weaving the events together as well as describing the intellectual debate between Paine and his adversary, Edmund Burke.  He also has some interesting points to make on the legacy of Paine.

The Case for Greatness, by Robert Faulkner

Faulkner, a political scientist at Boston College, takes a fresh look with great insight at political ambition, both the good and the bad, with particular emphasis on honorable ambition.  He treats some often-visited theories in a different light, and makes common sense distinctions between the good and the bad of political ambition in our leaders.  The chapter on George Washington is particularly insightful.  Another good treatment is that of Aristotle’s ethics as they pertain to the primary virtues.  His theme is magnanimity, or greatness of soul, and of its manifestation in history by “great souled men”, but he cautions us to be wary of those who would “remake the world”.  Faulkner makes a valiant attempt to lead us back to common sense and away from many of the abstractions that dominate postmodern thought.  I wish him well, but he will get no help from our elite institutions.

A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World, by William J. Bernstein

This is a really good read.  In fact, it deserves more depth, and I might soon write a more comprehensive essay on some of the thoughts in it.  For starters, it is a broad sweeping history of world trade that put it all in the best perspective that has ever been presented to me.  And by sweeping, I mean from Sumer in 3000BC to the World Trade Organization riots in Seattle in 1999.  It also engages the ideological aspects of the ongoing debate and clearly identifies the wedge issues that must be resolved if we are to maintain a relatively peaceful free trading environment in the world.  Bernstein tells a good story and is also an accomplished economic theorist.

Defending Identity, by Natan Sharansky

That man is back!  The author of The Case for Democracy, who probably had as much or more influence as anyone on George W. Bush’s thinking in the formative period of his Middle Eastern policy, has written this sequel to explain why democracy is necessary, but insufficient, to enable a nation-state to achieve prosperity for its people and peace with its neighbors.  An often missing (and even more often dismissed as damaging) ingredient is a strong cultural identity based on the shared bonds of history, religion, language, and cultural mores that constitute and give purpose to the society.  In Sharansky’s view, this strong identity has an absolutely indispensable role in protecting democracy, particularly the newly-formed ones, because democracy cannot long survive in a society in which a large proportion of the populace is not willing to pay the ultimate price in human terms to defend it.  Some of his narrative, particularly the part on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is pretty controversial stuff, and Sharansky draws a distinction between “good” and “bad” identity, which is important, but his overall thesis resonates with me.  A sample passage:  “If individuals are not bound by a commitment to history and tradition, if the connection between generations is broken and destroyed, there will be no passion and depth of emotion.  If all identity is seen as fluid, if nationality is merely political and not cultural, if it is seen as imaginary and therefore deluded, the mystic connections in time and space–what Abraham Lincoln called the mystic cords of memory–are lost.”