Commentary Magazine


Posts For: January 8, 2012

The Left’s Weekend (Culture) Warriors

When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, he suggested—and then repeatedly defended—the concept of a “truce” on social issues.

Daniels was making the point that the country’s fiscal challenges were so great—he likened them repeatedly to a “red menace” of our time—that everything else would have to take a backseat in the name of practicality. The main problem with this approach, as Bill McGurn pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, was that a truce among Republicans on such issues would be meaningless:

To begin with, the aggression on social issues today emanates mostly from the left, whose preferred vehicle is a willing judge inflicting his private social preferences on the law. Anyone who believes that a Republican call for a truce will end this is living in dreamland.

If the culture wars have followed any blueprint, it’s that the left initiates the battles and the right plays defense, only to have the media scold the right for engaging in the culture wars to begin with. As James W. Caesar wrote in a 2007 essay on conservatism:

The Religious Right objects to liberalism’s secularism. Secularism goes well beyond the espousal of an interpretation of the Constitution, where it has sought to erect a famous “wall of separation” between religion and the state. Its fundamental objective extends far beyond the legal realm. Liberal secularism is a project in its own right that is bent on eliminating any recognized place for biblical faith as the guiding light of the culture. It will not rest content until faith withdraws from playing any public role, direct or indirect. The conflict of secularism and faith is at the heart of the so-called “culture war.”

If the debates of this weekend did anything more clearly than vindicate social conservatives’ in this regard, I didn’t catch it. The concentration on social issues so flooded the debates that the topic was roundly mocked on Twitter more than any other aspect of the moderators’ behavior. But the moment that typified this was when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney the following question: “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Read More

Does Israel Cause Arab Anti-Semitism?

In recent years, a myth has taken root that the intense Jew-hatred that permeates Arab countries is simply the outgrowth of territorial disputes between Israel and Arab countries. Howard Gutman, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, created a mini-firestorm when he embraced this view, declaring, “Hatred and indeed sometimes… violence directed at Jews generally [is] a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories.”

Colin Rubenstein and the good folks Down Under at AIJAC have done a useful service by tackling this myth, noting the long history of anti-Semitism in the Middle East:

Read More

Rivals Attack Romney, But to No Avail

At last night’s debate, there were surprisingly few direct attacks on Mitt Romney. This morning, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum finally went after him, but neither was able to land a knockout punch:

Santorum began the morning’s attacks, accusing Romney of abandoning Republicans in Massachusetts by “bailing” from a difficult 2006 reelection campaign. When Romney cast his decision not to run for a second term as a selfless choice – saying he engaged in politics as a “citizen,” not a longtime official – Gingrich pounced. …

But the bad blood between Romney and his foes resurfaced before the debate was out, as Gingrich again went on the offensive – this time accusing Romney of duplicity in distancing himself from negative ads run by a super PAC funded by his “millionaire friends.”

Romney once more avoided a deer-in-the-headlights moment, though his speech was uncharacteristically halting as he explained that he wouldn’t support any attack ads that were inaccurate.

Read More

Can Sanctions Work on Iran?

There’s a growing chorus of skeptics among the foreign policy establishment who argue that sanctions will not change the Iranian regime’s behavior. After all, the Islamic Republic prioritizes ideology ahead of its own public’s well-being and, having grown up at the height of the Iran-Iraq war, many of Tehran’s ruling elite have faced far worse deprivation.

It is curious that proponents of engagement cite Iran’s pragmatism when it comes to the possibilities of successful diplomacy, but then acknowledge the Iranian leadership’s ideological commitment when it comes to reasons not to utilize tools of coercion.

Read More