Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
William F. Buckley says President Bush is not a true conservative. I’m going to have to agree with that.
“I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology � with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress,” Buckley says. “And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge.”
In fact, I will do Mr. Buckley one better. If you are to define a “liberal” as a public official who, when he or one of his initiatives is in a spat of trouble, responds first-and-foremost by spending money to ingratiate himself with those who might make much better allies than foes, President Bush has been the living illustration of that. He has been a fiscal conservative up until the point where he must spend political capital to keep the funds in the treasury where they belong. And quick as a whisper, the funds are spent, along with his fair-weather conservatism.
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure. “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says.
Asked what President Bush’s foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says “There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don’t believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable”
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with this. Why? Because Buckley’s definitions of success are external. They depend on the points-of-view of others. This isn’t Europe.
This is not to say that the zeitgeist (see FAQ, Question 10) lacks importance. The zeitgeist, as it applies here, is a special one. Like the prevailing notions of any other era, it has lift, and it has drag. The modern notion that Iraq is a failure, Bush has no legacy, etc. etc. etc. is popular, no doubt about it. But it has a lot of drag. Why do I say this?
I say this because the net prevailing notion, the notion that a change of course is needed, is a struggling one. President Bush may be faced with a hostile Congress during the last half of his second term; or, he may not. It’s too soon to say. And yet the lift has been extraordinary. Day after day after day, the Hollywood glitterati hold their rolling fasts and what-not; the print media opines endlessly about our “quagmire” and “Abu Ghraib,” and it’s plain to see the newspapers and magazines would just-as-soon we stayed out of Iraq altogether. We are bombarded with their agendized invective day after day.
To say that Iraq is going to cost President Bush his legacy, is to say it is self-evident that Iraq is a failure. If it was self-evident, the prevailing viewpoint would be more like a paper-airplane, not a 747. All this heated consumption of fuel, exhaust fumes, greenhouse gases, incredible heat, would be replaced by a simple flick-of-the-wrist. Such a notion would launch, and soar over all our heads…naturally.
That isn’t what is happening here. If Bush has a legacy, he needs no artificial force to keep it going. If he does not have one, then his enemies need no artificial force to keep it suppressed. They do need this artificial force; people of all ideologies, who’ve been paying attention to what’s going on, must agree on this. I’m not quite sure about whether he needs the same for his interests.
Come to think of it, conservatism is supposed to be about — I thought — rejecting the prevailing notion, in favor of recognizing truth for onesself. This is exactly what liberalism used to mean awhile back (see FAQ, linked above, Question 6). Buckley says Bush’s venture has been a failure, because if he was a European leader, he’d be expected to step down. Not to dispute the correctness of his hypothesis, but how does that matter?
Prevailing viewpoint is dangerous. We take it as a given that we all have influence in deciding what it is, and it rests completely in no single pair of hands. This is an extravagant notion to try to maintain, for if a sentiment is truly embraced by us all, there would be little or no need to communicate it. Collaboration would be an option. And yet the prevailing viewpoints that are supposed to prevail most aggressively, are the ones that are expressed with the greatest urgency by those who express them. Resources are spent, for no purpose other than to get the collaboration done, and then more resources are spent, and more, and more.
I’m having a great deal of difficulty with the notion that President Bush’s legacy has wilted to the point of oblivion, and at the same time, there is a pressing need to make sure everybody understand that it is gone. To put it concisely, why is there a pressing need to tell people what they’re supposed to already be thinking?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.