THE WANDERER, MAY 18, 2006
JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH
A Letter from Tehran
Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has addressed
an 18-page letter to President Bush, invoking Christ and
the prophets of the Old Testament in an appeal for peace,
combined with sharp criticism of U.S. foreign policy and
liberal democracy. The American press gave it scant
coverage, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the
mushroom cloud lady, dismissed it brusquely for offering
no concrete proposals of the kind the Bush administration
demands.
But Ahmadinejad's message was obviously aimed at a
wider audience -- the whole world, really, and especially
young Muslims. He will be seen as the leader who wants to
avoid war, while the Bush team will appear as the
aggressors who rejected his olive branch out of hand. And
he will be seen as the one appealing to the Christian
principles of peace and justice that Bush should be
guided by, thereby putting Americans in the role of
"Crusaders," infamous in the Islamic world.
With his talk of "Islamofascism," Bush may think
he's fighting World War II all over again, but Islam has
a longer memory and still sees itself as resisting the
assaults of the Middle Ages. Osama bin Laden never fails
to identify America and its Western allies, including the
state of Israel, as "Crusaders and Jews," terms with
galvanizing power in the Mideast. And Bush seldom fails
to validate his words in the eyes of his audience.
Ahmadinejad, ridiculed as a "flake" and damned as a
"lunatic" in the neoconservative press, actually appears
pretty shrewd. Whether Bush hailed or rebuffed this
appeal, it was bound to make it more awkward for him to
widen his war to Iran. It also upsets Bush's dramaturgy,
making it harder for him to cast Ahmadinejad as the
latest New Hitler bent on world conquest.
As noted here last week, even some supporters of
Israel are having qualms about a U.S. attack on Iran. Now
the usually rabid Alan Dershowitz, writing in the London
SPECTATOR, has warned against it. The Iraq war is not an
encouraging precedent. One such "cakewalk" is enough.
The Big Idea
With Bush's approval ratings barely gurgling above
30%, Republicans are starting to panic over this year's
elections. In recent days, E.J. Dionne Jr. and Harold
Meyerson of THE WASHINGTON POST, both liberals, have
already commenced licking their chops at the prospect of
big Democratic gains in Congress in November.
Dionne points to "the failure of conservative
policies and the declining appeal of conservative
rhetoric." This, I'm afraid, is a half-truth, but a
deadly one. Bush has adopted almost nothing that can be
called a conservative policy. The awful truth is that he
has given us the biggest government in American history,
while using -- and debasing -- that conservative
rhetoric.
In this, alas, he has been abetted by conservatives
who should have known better. The result is that
conservatism has been politically discredited. Voters
aren't going to split hairs over distinctions between
"conservatism" and "neoconservatism."
Meyerson likewise decries (gleefully) the
Republicans' "bankruptcy of ideas." They have run out of
exploitable issues, he says, citing the war, a stagnant
economy, immigration, taxes, energy, and so on. By
contrast, he cites a series of wonky proposals he thinks
will carry the Democrats to victory at the polling booth,
such as repealing part of the Medicare drug plan that ...
zzzzzz.
In truth, the Republicans do have an idea.
Unfortunately, it's basically the same idea the Democrats
always have: more government. The dreary tyranny of
piecemeal socialism in which there is no such thing as
enough. Neither party has any sense of the normal, of a
point at which government has done all it can for
society.
If such a point exists, surely we passed it long
ago. Long, long ago. Today the very idea of limited
government is passe. The state now performs an enormous
miscellany of functions, and is always looking eagerly
for yet more things to do.
Hardly anyone in politics now dares to suggest that
there can be too much government, and that "reform"
should mean repealing superfluous laws and programs and
cutting it down to its essential functions. And perish
the thought that the federal government should be reduced
to its constitutional dimensions!
Liberalism lacks even the concept of an optimum
amount of government, beyond which it must not go; and
this is where conservatism used to come in, insisting
that enough was enough. The very idea of "enough" was
alien to liberals, who ascribed it to a lack of
compassion and/or imagination.
Nowadays that idea is barely kept alive by a few
libertarians and, I'm afraid, even fewer conservatives.
The legacy of the Bush Republicans may be to have finally
finished it off in American politics.
The Celebrity Glut
First I noticed the news that Jessica was finally
pregnant. Then, only weeks later, she and Nick had split
up! Now I see that Nick is still carrying a torch for
Jessica, and the big question is whether she's going to
return his ring.
Who are these people, anyway? Don't ask me! Everyone
but me seems to be on a first-name basis with them, and I
hesitate to ask their surnames. I know of them only from
seeing the tabloids and magazines every week at Giant or
Safeway.
I do know that Tom and Katie are Tom Cruise and
Katie Holmes, who have just had a baby and may even get
married, but please don't press me for more information.
(I forget whom Tom used to be married to. Somebody
famous, I think. Was it Nicole? Not O.J.'s Nicole,
another one.)
Such is the celebrity culture I dwell on the dim
fringes of. Nobody can quite escape it. Feeding public
curiosity about the fleetingly famous is an enormously
lucrative business, with television now supplementing the
cheap press in its coverage.
Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is
vanity. I go back to the days of Liz and Dick, Jackie and
Ari, and an older generation of celebs, back before half
of them were named Britney. I see that that generation is
all but gone, with a recent article reporting that Liz is
soon to succumb to heart trouble. After eight husbands!
Seven, actually; she married Dick twice.
Why, I can remember when she and he were so
scandalous -- this was around 1962 -- that L'OSSERVATORE
ROMANO felt it necessary to denounce their behavior.
Today's stars are so abandoned that nobody bothers
complaining about their conduct. Has it come to this?
I feel old.
+ + +
If you have not yet seen SOBRAN'S, my monthly
newsletter, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and
request a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two
years for just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with
their subscription. More details can be found at the
Subscription page of my website, www.sobran.com.
Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription
for a priest, friend, or relative.
--- Joseph Sobran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2006/w060518.shtml".
This column copyright (c) 2006 by THE WANDERER, the
National Catholic Weekly founded in 1867,
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.
This column may not be published in print or Internet
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER.
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:
"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street,
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are
available by e-mail subscription. For details and
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
This page copyright (c) 2006 by THE VERE COMPANY.