One of President Bush’s most debatable legacies will be his idea regarding the spread of democracy. The vast majority of people seem to disagree with him. I have had my doubts I will admit. In theory I do agree with him but then when you look at the world as it really is I have doubted that his view can be sustained in a meaningful way. But columnist Charles Krauthammer has a distinctive way of making me rethink my conclusions and today he did it again.

Krauthammer’s syndicated column in my paper this morning is titled: "Difficulty of Spreading Democracy Throughout the World." What an understatement! He admits the great difficulties that are apparent to everyone who knows anything about the modern world. He sets Pakistan forward as exhibit A. With the death of Benazir Bhutto her nineteen year-old son will now represent the Pakistan People’s Party, which really is the Bhutto "we deserve to rule" party. Elections in Pakistan have historically been about the way the Bhutto family regains power. Benazir gained power after her father was hung following a […]

Republicans are right when they seek to invoke President Ronald Reagan’s legacy as their standard. Because Reagan redefined what it meant to be a Republican so profoundly his legacy will remain the gold standard for some time. George W. Bush ran on that legacy but did not hold to it in important ways once he was elected. In much the same way Democrats have invoked the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as their standard bearer for over sixty years. The major difference is that modern Democrats are much further from FDR, at least on foreign policy, than any of them would ever care to admit.

But most Republicans have already abandoned the Reagan legacy too, it is just not so obvious yet. My friend Andrew Sandlin captures this fracture very well in a piece that he wrote this week. I urge you to read it. Andrew expresses well what I noted a few days ago on this site when I outlined a simple three-point test for what should guide a modern conservative political philosophy. I also think he is quite […]

I have made a lot of reference on this site to the type of conservatism that I embrace socially and politically. I am not going to write an essay explaining this philosophy, since many of you can figure this out by now and if you care at all you will try. But it is right and fair to say that there are three essential planks in my conservatism.

1. National Defense

Regardless of anything else a country must do, via its government (Romans 13), if it is not protected in the modern world it will not last for long, especially when it has avowed and determined enemies. It is a simple fact that we have such avowed enemies and they are Muslim Jihadists. They intend to destroy our civilization one way or the other. I do not prefer, as George Weigel has taught me, to use terms like Islamo-Fascism or Islamo-Nazism since these terms are not easily understood or really appropriate. The Jidhadist term is used by Muslims themselves and thus says all we need to say. So, a truly conservative position […]

Our democracy is at work this evening even though the process is playing out in an antiquated form in the Iowa caucuses. I am listening to Extension 720, hosted by Milt Rosenberg, a wonderful program on our local Chicago super station, WGN. Rosenberg is one of the most fair and honest conservative voices I know in radio. He is an intellectual with a keen interest in almost every subject imaginable. I listen to him because he will give every angle of the story a fair look.

Who will win? What difference will it make? Right now no one knows. I lean towards the data which says Obama and Huckabee will win tonight. (Early data says older adults vote for Clinton while younger ones go for Obama.) In the end I do not think this caucus matters a great deal. The Iowa caucus has rarely made a real difference in the primary process. It must be understood that it is not even a primary in the true sense of the word. But in turns of impact in Iowa Jimmy Carter comes to […]