The Ridiculous Glibness of National Review

Thursday, 18th June 2009

Could American conservatives be any more glib? Here's Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, in a post titled Obama Throughout History:

On the Sack of Rome: "Any time a major urban area is plundered so quickly, it is concerning to us. We are sure the Gauls and Chieftain Brennus understand Roman worries about the utter devastation of their city."
On the Blitz: "Any time a city is bombed for 57 straight nights, we take notice. That is something that interests us. We hope all national air forces involved in this dismaying conflict behave responsibly."
On the creation of the Berlin Wall: "Any time a barrier divides people we get worried, and perhaps even chagrined. We hope all Germans can work this out amicably, and agree on construction standards and building materials going forward. We, as Americans, stand ready to observe closely."
On the boat-people exodus from Vietnam: "Any time people resort to watercraft in such numbers that is certainly notable. I'm sure the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam will work with its duly constituted maritime authorities to resolve this matter in a manner satisfactory to all parties.”

This would be much better if it were either arch or, you know, funny.

As Mr Larison wisely writes:

It goes without saying that if Obama had taken a more ardently pro-Mousavi line, he would be catching flak from many of the same people who would attack his response as naive “Yes We Can” idealism detached from harsh realities. What is striking is how many of Obama’s more hawkish critics are prepared to argue that U.S. policy should be defined by syrupy sentimentality, hope and a lot of empty talk (all of the things they have accused Obama of offering in the past), while Obama has so far opted for caution, humility and restraint.

Quite.

Filed under: Hackery (218 more articles) , Iran (144 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Bill Markley

June 18th, 2009 3:38am Report this comment

As Henry Kissinger just said this evening, the United States shouldn't hesitate to argue for freedom, morality and justice abroad. This doesn't have to be done in a way that supports Mousavi, who is himself a criminal. But if the USA advocates for freedom, it encourages dissidents within oppressive regimes. This is what happened under Communism when Reagan spoke out against oppression.

Obama has cozied up to regimes including the one in Iran at the expense of standing up for moral principles. And this preoccupation with trying to avoid "meddling" is foolish. The USA will be accused of meddling no matter what it does. In a sense Obama has already meddled in the situation in Iran by accommodating the mullahs and Ahmadinejad.

Michael B

June 18th, 2009 7:06am Report this comment

Caution? Humility? Restraint? Obama, who has communed with Ed Said, Khalidi and others of similar ilk? Au contraire, he's sallied forth with about as much rhetorical bravado and, seemingly, narcissistic, arrogating pride as can be imagined in the circumstances. Whether it actually is, more clinically, a narcissism or a sociopathology of some other temper and kind, I don't know.

It isn't "humility" and it isn't "restraint."

No one is suggesting Obama mount some type of ad hoc militaristic initiative, but this is a window of some moment and Obama's "let's see" aestheticism and "we will not meddle" ideological attitude is precisely that, the indulgence of an ideologue cum aesthete, not a chief executive. He serves in Washington D.C., not Hollywood.

NJ

June 18th, 2009 10:18am Report this comment

"We do not want to intervene directly and we are not doing that. But indignation, the need to support democrats, the need to support reformists – that, we affirm loud and clear."

- Bernard Kouchner, 17th June 2009

There, that wasn't so hard was it?

Craig

June 18th, 2009 8:30pm Report this comment

I don't know what is worse about the NR crowd - their bitterness or their ignorance. The sad fact is that these so-called conservatives WANT Ahmadinejad to stay in power and that is why they want Obama to dance to the Mullah's tune.

Craig

June 18th, 2009 10:22pm Report this comment

Another thing that should be noted (but that the NR and supporters conspicuously haven't) is that the Iranian people have not asked for Obama's support. When they do, he may well be more forthright in his support for them. This is, of course, another diffenence between the situation in eastern Europe under communism and the situation in Iran now.

Post comment