Decision ‘08

Kristol’s Call To Arms

William Kristol has an answer, of sorts, to William F. Buckley’s pessimism: no retreat, baby, no surrender.

Kristol acknowledges that radical Islam has taken the offensive, and the West is on it heels. He questions whether we are up to the challenge, and defines the mindset of many of us who continue to support Bush and the war:

Does that make Bush-supporting, liberal-democracy-promoting, Iraq-war-defending neoconservative “Leninists,” as Francis Fukuyama has recently charged? No. Does it mean we believe–as Fukuyama defines Leninism–that “history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will”? Does it mean that history does not automatically move in the right direction, that justice does not necessarily or easily prevail? Yes.

Kristol ends by rallying the troops:

Moral seriousness in this case means political seriousness. Insist on going ahead with the ports deal so that Arab governments who have stood with us in the war on terror are not told to get lost when one of their companies acquires port management contracts in the United States. Make a real effort to destabilize Ahmadinejad in Iran. Do what it takes to defeat Zarqawi and secure Iraq. Stand with Denmark, and moderate Muslims, against the radical mob. This is no time for dishonorable retreat. It is time for resolve–and competence. After all, it would be most unfortunate if the administration summoned its nerve and charged ahead–only to meet the fate of Tennyson’s Light Brigade!

Kristol’s article is an important counterweight to Buckley’s…read both articles, and decides who’s right for yourself…I choose Kristol in this argument, but then, I’m an eternal optimist when it comes to the power of American ideals…

One Response to “Kristol’s Call To Arms”

1 Colin Says:
February 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Thank God for people like Kristol on the Right. What his crowd (derisively called “Neo-Cons”) has done has pushed conservatism past Buckley’s famous description of “Standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’”. Finally the right has a vision of the future, not simply a longing for the past (which is not a bad thing, but not all that is needed to advance thought). Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of what William F. Buckley says. I just don’t think he (and other conservatives like Robert Novak) have a plan for our current world, with America engaged with everyone else on the planet.

The Right is going to have to choose whose vision they want to follow - Buckley’s or Kristol’s. Considering the love still felt for Reagan felt by many on the Right, I am hopeful they will choose Kristol’s.

Of course, I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.