Alex writes: I’m here to take issue. BLS is correct and I have been troubled by some of the broad assumptions made here. Make them if you want; I would just like to see someone as intellectually honest as you give equal *scrutiny* to Kerry. I understand that you hate Bush. But I would urge you to read Victor Davis Hanson’s most recent article – his knowledge of history and its lessons for our time is highly credible. Other than his last para, with what do you disagree in his article?
I don’t hate Bush. I suspect that I’d quite like him on a personal basis. What I despise is that after years in the wilderness, the Republican Party has shown that it is far more interested in government power than it is in the small government principles that it has historically pretended to uphold. George Bush, more than any other individual, is responsible for this abandonment of foundational principles. As I’ve written many times before, Democrats are more blatant in their naked pursuit of government power. This doesn’t make them less abhorrent to me – the subtitle of Monday’s piece is “Why John Kerry wants to kill you” – but it also doesn’t require much in the way of pointing out the flaws and corruption in their philosophy.
I have a very high regard for Victor Davis Hanson. However, the nation and the nation’s leadership have by no means made the case or even made the decision to fight the great clash of civilizations war that is coming. Calling the present conflict “war” is a pretty serious stretch of the concept, especially considering that the two enemies selected have already been defeated. I can’t remember who pointed it out, but it’s true that if there’s zero chance of the enemy raising its flag over your capital, it’s not a very serious war by historical standards.