He had an interesting link to Andrew Sullivan's blog entry on "Why we went to war".
I thanked Harry for posting the link and replied:
Thanks for posting the link to “Why We Went to War”. I’ve long suspected that it was more “projection of power” than real defense. However, if it had been executed properly it might have worked. But then ideologues have an unrealistic view of their own capabilities. I think about Carl Becker’s assertion that Lincoln went to war not so much to quell a rebellion or to abolish slavery but to keep the power of the whole United States against depradations on a splintered America by European powers. See, “The United States: An Experiment in Democracy”. Sorry, I don’t have a page number.I had also emailed him a link to David Brooks' column "No U-Turns", New York Times, March 29, 2007. Brooks said that the political environment is not for the rugged individualism of Goldwater and Reagan. He called it the "Liberty vs. Power paradigm". He wrote that the new paradigm is "security leads to freedom".
I sort of agree that Goldwater and Reagan aren't the future of the GOP but its a mystery to me how the party can recover from Bush,Cheney, Rove, Dobson and company.I replied:
I think the only hope for politics is some new, grand coalition like I suggested in my April Fool Reader article. It doesn’t have to be Olympia Snowe, but somebody of stature who works on governance rather than power and posturing. Maybe Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. The latter can’t become President under the current rules, but he could be an enabler.I did send webforms to Snow, Sebelius, and Schwazenegger with the link to my article and the hope that they would continue their work on the common ground.
